northern fescue natural subregion€¦ · 15/3/2013 · • link long-term monitoring data to...

Northern Fescue Natural Subregion

L ‐ R S I R T

N G :

July 2014

P r e p a r e d F o r :

PTAC Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada

P r e p a r e d B y :

J. Lancaster, M. Neville, P. Desserud, V. Craig, R. Adams, B. Adams, and J. Woosaree

Natural Recovery - Rumsey

Narrow-strip Pipeline - Seeded

Rough Fescue Seeding

Long-term Revegetation Success of Industry Reclamation Techniques for Native Grassland:

Northern Fescue Natural Subregion

Prepared for: PTAC (Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada) Suite 400, Chevron Plaza 500 - Fifth Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta, T2P 3L5

Date: July 2014

FINAL

Prepared by:

J. Lancaster, M. Neville, P. Desserud, V. Craig, R. Adams, B. Adams, and J. Woosaree

Sponsorship

Alberta Upstream Petroleum Research Fund Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (PTAC) Recipient Agreement 13-AU-ERPC-05 Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Government of Alberta Special Areas Board TransCanada Apache Corporation Ltd.

Contributors

Mae Elsinger CorPirate Services Alberta Innovates - Technology Futures

Long-term Revegetation Success of Industry Reclamation Techniques for Native Grassland: Northern Fescue Natural Subregion

July 2014 FINAL Page i

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge a funding partnership for this research project from; the Alberta Upstream Petroleum Research Fund, administered through the Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada, TransCanada, Apache Corporation, Special Areas Board and Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. The authors would also like to acknowledge the researchers that generously donated historic revegetation monitoring data from several projects, including Mae Elsinger, Peggy Desserud and Jay Woosaree. Other sources of map and plant community data were provided by Special Areas Board and Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development.


July 2014 FINAL Page ii

Photo Credits

Cover Photos

- Natural Recovery - Rumsey, courtesy of Peggy Desserud

- Rough Fescue Seeding, courtesy of Peggy Desserud

- Narrow-strip Pipeline - Seeded, courtesy of Peggy Desserud

Introduction

- Prairie Rose (Rosa arkansana), courtesy of Varge Craig

- Northern Fescue Natural Subregion: Wintering Hills Ecodistrict, courtesy of Peggy Desserud


July 2014 FINAL Page iii

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1-7

2 RESTORATION CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES ................................................................................. 2-9

2.1 CLIMATE, SOILS AND PHYSIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 2-9 2.2 FRAGMENTATION ............................................................................................................................................. 2-9 2.3 INVASIVE NON-NATIVE PLANTS ...................................................................................................................... 2-10 2.4 PAST RECLAMATION AND REVEGETATION PRACTICES ................................................................................... 2-11

3 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 3-13

3.1 SEEDING ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-13 3.1.1 Wild Harvested Seed ......................................................................................................................... 3-13 3.1.2 Native Grass hay ................................................................................................................................ 3-14 3.1.3 Cultivars and Ecovars™ .................................................................................................................... 3-14 3.1.4 Seed Mixes and Seeding Rates ........................................................................................................ 3-15 3.1.5 Season of Seeding ............................................................................................................................. 3-17 3.1.6 Seed Lot Quality and Viability............................................................................................................ 3-18

3.2 TRANSPLANTS, PLUGS OR SOD ...................................................................................................................... 3-19 3.2.1 Transplants or Sod ............................................................................................................................. 3-19 3.2.2 Plugs.................................................................................................................................................... 3-19

3.3 COMPETITION AMONG NATIVE AND INVASIVE SPECIES ................................................................................... 3-19 3.4 INVASIVE SPECIES ......................................................................................................................................... 3-20 3.5 SOIL MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES .................................................................................................................. 3-21

3.5.1 Handling Topsoil ................................................................................................................................. 3-21 3.5.2 Irrigation .............................................................................................................................................. 3-21 3.5.3 Soil Amendments ............................................................................................................................... 3-21 3.5.4 Soil Nutrient Depletion ....................................................................................................................... 3-22

3.6 EFFECTS OF GRAZING ................................................................................................................................... 3-23 3.7 NATURAL RECOVERY ..................................................................................................................................... 3-24

4 2013 MONITORING STUDIES ....................................................................................................................... 4-27

4.1 MONITORING SITE SELECTION ....................................................................................................................... 4-27 4.2 DATA COLLECTION METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 4-28 4.3 RESULTS SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 4-29

4.3.1 Influence of Non-native and Native Compatible Seed Mixes .......................................................... 4-29 4.3.2 Influence of Adjacent Disturbances on Revegetation of Disturbed Topsoil ................................... 4-29 4.3.3 Recovery of Minimal Disturbance Wellsites ..................................................................................... 4-30

5 MULTIPLE PROJECT MONITORING STUDIES .......................................................................................... 5-31

5.1 MULTIPLE PROJECT DATA COLLECTION METHODS ........................................................................................ 5-31 5.2 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION........................................................................................................... 5-31

5.2.1 Cluster Analysis and Plant Community Ordination Methods........................................................... 5-31 5.2.2 Assessment of Successional Stage .................................................................................................. 5-32 5.2.3 Influence of Ecodistrict on Range Plant Community........................................................................ 5-32

5.3 SUCCESSIONAL PLANT COMMUNITIES FOLLOWING DISTURBANCE ON LOAMY RANGE SITES .......................... 5-33 5.3.1 Time frame for Recovery ................................................................................................................... 5-33 5.3.2 Influence of Site Health on Recovery................................................................................................ 5-33 5.3.3 Influence of Invasive Species ............................................................................................................ 5-33 5.3.4 Natural Recovery ................................................................................................................................ 5-34 5.3.5 Native Seed Mixes ............................................................................................................................. 5-35 5.3.6 Infill ...................................................................................................................................................... 5-35

5.4 BENEFICIAL RECLAMATION PRACTICES - POSITIVE RECOVERY OF PLANT COMMUNITIES ON LOAMY RANGE SITES ........................................................................................................................................................ 5-38

5.4.1 Diverse Seed Mixes ........................................................................................................................... 5-38 5.4.2 Use of Plains Rough Fescue Seedlings (Plugs) .............................................................................. 5-40


July 2014 FINAL Page iv

6 KEY FINDINGS AND GAP ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 6-41

6.1 RESTORATION POTENTIAL ............................................................................................................................. 6-41 6.2 SUCCESSION.................................................................................................................................................. 6-41 6.3 SEEDING ........................................................................................................................................................ 6-41

6.3.1 Cultivars .............................................................................................................................................. 6-41 6.3.2 Wild harvested seed ........................................................................................................................... 6-42 6.3.3 Plains Rough Fescue ......................................................................................................................... 6-42

6.4 SEED MIXES AND RATES ................................................................................................................................ 6-42 6.5 SEASON OF SEEDING ..................................................................................................................................... 6-43 6.6 SEED LOT QUALITY AND VIABILITY ................................................................................................................. 6-43 6.7 TRANSPLANTS AND SEEDLINGS ...................................................................................................................... 6-44 6.8 PLANT COMPETITION ..................................................................................................................................... 6-44 6.9 SOIL MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES .................................................................................................................. 6-44 6.10 SOIL AMENDMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 6-45 6.11 EFFECTS OF GRAZING ............................................................................................................................... 6-45 6.12 NATURAL RECOVERY ................................................................................................................................ 6-45 6.13 PERSISTENT AND INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECIES ..................................................................................... 6-46 6.14 INFILL ........................................................................................................................................................ 6-46 6.15 TIME FRAME FOR RECOVERY ..................................................................................................................... 6-46 6.16 RECLAMATION DOCUMENTATION AND MONITORING................................................................................... 6-46

7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 7-47

APPENDIX A EXPRESS PIPELINE NORTHERN FESCUE NSR FIELD STUDIES ....................................... A-53

A.1 NATIVE SEED MIX PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................................. A-54 A.2 ASSESSING PLANT COMMUNITY SUCCESSION ON DISTURBED TOPSOIL .................................................... A-57 A.3 RECOVERY OF FORBS ............................................................................................................................... A-59

APPENDIX B NORTHERN FESCUE NATURAL SUBREGION 2013 FIELD STUDIES ................................ B-61

B.1 RECOVERY OF ADJACENT LARGE DIAMETER PIPELINES AFTER TOPSOIL STRIPPING ................................. B-61 B.1.1 Methods Summary ............................................................................................................................. B-61 B.1.2 Monitoring Results .............................................................................................................................. B-61

B.2 2013 WELL SITE REVEGETATION MONITORING SURVEYS ......................................................................... B-77

APPENDIX C CLUSTER ANALYSIS AND ORDINATION OF PLANT COMMUNITIES ON LOAMY AND BLOWOUT RANGE SITES IN THE NORTHERN FESCUE NATURAL SUBREGION .......... C-83

C.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... C-84 C.2 METHODS ...................................................................................................................................................... C-84 C.3 RESULTS – UNDISTURBED NATIVE GRASSLAND CONTROLS ........................................................................... C-85 C.4 RESULTS - PLANT COMMUNITIES ON RECOVERING DISTURBANCE ................................................................. C-94 C.5 RESULTS – COMPARISON OF RECOVERY FOR SEEDED AND NATURAL RECOVERY RECLAMATION

TREATMENTS .......................................................................................................................................... C-122

APPENDIX D ALBERTA INNOVATES - TECHNOLOGY FUTURES NATIVE PRAIRIE REVEGETATION PROJECTS .................................................................................................................................. D-131

D.1 ALBERTA INNOVATES SEED MIXES USED FOR REVEGETATION TRIALS ..................................................... D-131 D.2 WELLSITE REVEGETATION TRIALS ON MESIC PLAINS ROUGH FESCUE GRASSLAND SITES ...................... D-133 D.3 ALBERTA INNOVATES PLAINS ROUGH FESCUE PRAIRIE RESTORATION TRIALS ON A PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY

IN BODO HILLS .................................................................................................................................... D-142

APPENDIX E CASE STUDY - PLAINS ROUGH FESCUE SEEDING ............................................................ E-143

APPENDIX F CASE STUDY - NATURAL RECOVERY IN THE RUMSEY NATURAL AREA ..................... F-149


July 2014 FINAL Page v

List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Ecodistricts and remaining native grassland in the Northern Fescue NSR ......................... 2-10

List of Tables

Table 3-1 A Selection of Drill Seeding Rates for Projects in this Review ............................................. 3-17 Table 5-1 Control Plant Communities Correlated to the Northern Fescue NSR Range Plant

Community Guide .................................................................................................................... 5-31 Table 5-2 Definitions for Plant Community Seral Stages on Disturbed Topsoil ................................... 5-32 Table 5-3 Successional Plant Communities following Disturbance on Loamy Northern Fescue NSR

Sites .......................................................................................................................................... 5-34 Table 5-4 Descriptions of Reclamation Treatments associated with Successional Plant Communities

Following Disturbance on Loamy Northern Fescue NSR Sites ............................................ 5-35 Table 5-5 Treatments and Site Conditions Associated with a Recovering Mid- to Late Seral

Disturbance Community (disturbance cluster 5). ................................................................... 5-40


July 2014 FINAL Page vi


July 2014 FINAL Page 1-7

1 INTRODUCTION Industrial development on native grasslands is increasing across the prairies. Healthy range plant communities perform important ecological functions including; net primary productivity, maintenance of soil/site stability, capture and beneficial release of water, nutrient and energy cycling and plant species functional diversity (Adams et al. 2013). Unless we can restore functioning and self-sustaining native plant communities that are resilient to invasive species, we stand to lose our native grasslands. It is clear that our past and some current reclamation practices are not achieving this goal. The goal of this research project is to promote industry stewardship by minimizing the footprint and improving restoration potential on native plant communities.

This study is part of a multi-year, multi-stakeholder initiative to revisit industry revegetation strategies for native prairie in the Grassland Natural Region. Updating the guidelines is a two-step process based on collecting existing learnings, conducting field studies to gather new insight and then using this information to develop practical recovery strategies. The first document from this initiative; “Recovery Strategies for Industrial Development in Native Prairie: The Dry Mixedgrass Natural Subregion of Alberta – 1st Approximation”, was published February 2013. Data collection for the Mixedgrass occurred in 2011 and the resulting document, “Recovery Strategies for Industrial Development in Native Prairie: The Mixedgrass Natural Subregion of Alberta – 1st Approximation”, was published in March 2014.

This report presents a literature review and summarizes data collection from several sources to assess whether past and present reclamation strategies are achieving restoration of native grasslands in the Northern Fescue NSR.

The purpose of this study is to:

• Assess whether current reclamation methods are achieving the desired long‐term goal of restoring native prairie (successes and areas to improve);

• Provide the long-term data to develop best management practices and appropriate revegetation strategies for industrial disturbances on native prairie in the Northern Fescue NSR;

• Link long-term monitoring data to current tools for reclamation planning, including GVI, AGRASID, the Range Plant Community Guides and the Rangeland Health Assessment handbook;

• Use the information collected to develop and update recovery strategies to support the intent of the 2010 Reclamation Criteria for Grasslands and to provide guidance for the oil and gas industry, reclamation practitioners, contractors, landowners and Government of Alberta regulatory authorities.

Prairie Rose (Rosa arkansana)



The following assessment of long-term revegetation success of industry reclamation techniques for native grassland in the Northern Fescue Natural Subregion is a collaborative project with contributions of historic project data, reclamation monitoring data, personal experience and reporting by a number of researchers, industry practitioners and industry sponsors. The compiled information includes:

• A literature review;

• Analysis of existing data from several research programs;

• Results of 2013 field monitoring studies on recovering industry disturbances; and

• Emerging reclamation methods from several current research trials addressing knowledge gaps.

The report synthesizes existing knowledge and the results of 2013 field monitoring surveys and links the results to ecological range sites and plant communities described in the Range Plant Community Guide for the Northern Fescue Natural Subregion (Kupsch et al. 2012).

Northern Fescue Natural Subregion: Wintering Hills Ecodistrict



2 RESTORATION CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES Restoration of disturbed sites should focus on establishing a pathway or a trajectory consisting of desirable species associated with late seral to reference plant communities In the Northern Fescue NSR. Dominant species vary with ecological conditions. Mesic grasslands in the western regions, with Loamy soils (such as the Rumsey Natural Area), are dominated by plains rough fescue (Festuca hallii), western wheat grass (Agropyron smithii), western porcupine grass (Stipa curtiseta) and sedges. In eastern areas, with drier and sandy soils (such as the Wainwright area), species dominance shifts to sand grass (Calamovilfa longifolia), needle-and-thread (Stipa comata), and sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus) (Kupsch et al. 2012).

2.1 Climate, Soils and Physiography The climate of the Northern Fescue NSR is characterized by a continental micro climate with relatively short summers, cold winters and low precipitation. Total annual precipitation in the Northern Fescue is lower than in all Grassland Natural Subregions except the Dry Mixed Grass and effective growing degree-days are lower than most of the surrounding Natural Subregions, (Kupsch et al. 2012). The combination of a short growing season with periods of drought can limit seedling germination, emergence and survival.

Hummocky to rolling hills systems with medium textured glacial till deposits occur to the east, south and western portions of the NSR, including the Neutral Hills, the Hand Hills and the Wintering Hills. The central portion of the NSR is a gently undulating fine textured till and lacustrine plain, and the north encompasses the southern portion of the Rumsey Natural Area (Natural Regions Committee, 2006).

The Northern Fescue NSR is described in the Agricultural Regions of Alberta Soils Information Database (AGRASID) as located in Soil correlation Area 4. Dark Brown Chernozemic soils dominate the NSR, with Solonetzic soils associated with saline and sodic soils common in the central plain (Natural Regions Committee, 2006).

Plains rough fescue (Festuca hallii) plant communities dominate sites with average moisture regimes in the remaining upland native grasslands plant communities. Drier than average sites support communities typical of moister sites in the Dry Mixedgrass and Mixedgrass NSRs. Sites with higher than average moisture regimes support shrubland plant communities (Natural Regions Committee, 2006). At higher elevations and in hummocky topography, aspen forests dominate lower slope and north-facing aspects.

2.2 Fragmentation The Northern Fescue is a mosaic of cultivated fields and remnant native prairie in the plains, with more contiguous native grasslands located in the Neutral and Hand Hills. Approximately 60% of the land base has been cultivated and is in agricultural annual crop production or forage and livestock production. Approximately 40% of the land base is remnant native grassland and shrubland plant communities (Natural Regions Committee, 2006). Figure 2-1 illustrates the mosaic of cultivation (white) and remnant native prairie areas illustrated as green (Kupsch et al. 2012).

Extensive oil and gas exploration and development occurred during the 1990s in native grassland. The construction practices of the day and the infrastructure required to drill and produce petroleum products in the region resulted in a mosaic of surface disturbances associated with wellsites, access roads, flow lines and sales lines. As well, large diameter pipeline corridors for oil, bitumen and natural gas occur within the NSR. Transmission lines, highways and rural road infrastructure contribute to native grassland fragmentation.



Figure 2-1 Ecodistricts and remaining native grassland in the Northern Fescue NSR

2.3 Invasive Non-native Plants Extensive cultivation and industrial development in the Northern Fescue NSR can increase the risk of non-native plant invasion into native plant communities when surface soils are disturbed. Livestock grazing practices that reduce the vigour and cover of desirable native forage plants can also create an environment for the invasion of non-native plants. This includes Prohibited Noxious and Noxious weeds regulated under the Alberta Weed Control Act (Government of Alberta 2010). The nutrient rich loamy soils that dominate the remnant native grasslands provide an ideal growing matrix for aggressive non-native plants once the native vegetation is removed and the soils exposed. Forage crops, perennial hay land and tame pastures scattered throughout the landscape provide an abundant seed source of invasive agronomic species such as awnless brome (Bromus inermis), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis and Melilotus alba). These agronomic species are known to invade exposed soils and encroach into adjacent native plant communities in the Northern Fescue NSR.



The remnant native grasslands of the Northern Fescue are a multiple use landscape. Ranching and farming are vital to local economies. Livestock grazing in native grassland is generally limited to summer months at higher elevations, with spring, fall and winter grazing generally confined to low elevation pastures. Agronomic forage is provided during the winter months. General landscape scale observations made during the 2013 field work for this project indicated invasive agronomic plants such as awnless brome or Kentucky bluegrass readily colonize disturbed soils in moist sites such as riparian areas and water courses or sites such as aspen clones where livestock congregate to seek shelter. Transportation corridors, and stripped and graded wellsites and pipelines built prior to 1993 and seeded to agronomic species provide additional seed source. These pockets and conduits of invasive plants provide a seed source for industrial soil disturbances.

2.4 Past Reclamation and Revegetation Practices Prior to 1963, there was no requirement in Alberta to reclaim industrial disturbances, although some seeding with tame forages did occur. Alberta legislation requiring the reclamation of land disturbed by industrial activities came into effect in 1963 with the enactment of the Surface Reclamation Act. In 1973 the Land Surface Reclamation Act came into effect and provided for planning industrial development to minimize impact (Sinton 2001). Early reclamation practices were developed, the emphasis was placed on soil conservation and seeding with agronomic grasses such as crested wheat grass (Agropyron cristatum), and awnless brome to provide reliable vegetative cover to prevent soil erosion. From 1985 to 1993, reclamation practices focused on improving soil handling procedures, and erosion control. To facilitate precision in soil handling, the area of disturbance required for projects drastically increased. This led to increased disturbance of native plant communities and increased the risk of invasion by aggressive agronomic species invasion. From 1993 to the present, the importance of the native plant communities’ role in ecological function has been recognized. The focus of reclaiming industrial disturbances has shifted towards reducing the footprint of industrial disturbance and where that is not possible, revegetating disturbed soils with native plant cultivars (Neville et al. 2013).

Topsoil stripping requires area for storage, resulting in a major soil disturbance. Although topsoil is stripped, stored and replaced, the procedure can result in admixing of soil horizons, and the dilution of the native seed bank (Elsinger, 2009). Wellsite lease construction practices observed during the 2013 field component of this project indicated that a majority of producing wellsites and access roads in native grasslands are full width stripped and graded sites. Many are producing oil facilities, graded and bermed for spill containment.



3 LITERATURE REVIEW Revegetation practices have evolved over time, starting with little revegetation prior to the 1970s, to planting agronomic species in the 1970s and 1980s, and with attempts to restore pre-disturbance plant communities commencing in the late 1980s and 1990s. This literature review examines current and past research into revegetation of disturbances, focusing on the Northern Fescue NSR of Alberta.

3.1 Seeding

3.1.1 Wild Harvested Seed One of the greatest obstacles to using native species or changing revegetation practices is the limited range and volume of commercially available native seed (Woosaree 2000). Wilson (2002) identified three major constraints to prairie restoration; lack of seed, among-year variability in establishment, and the persistence of introduced, non-native perennial species. Morgan (1995) outlined several wild seed collection methods: hand harvesting, native seed strippers and combines (if the area is large). Wild harvested seed presents particular difficulties including uncertainty of the seed maturity dates, variable field conditions, seed source genetic locations being incompatible with the reclamation site, knowledge of the collector, hand-collection methods, and storage methods (Morgan et al. 1995; Smreciu et al. 2003). Stewart (2009) and Morgan (1995) noted the importance of selecting the proper collection area and the prime seeding stage, sparing and avoiding rare or endangered species, and obtaining permission or permits as required. Stewart (2009) also cautioned wild seed collection takes time and requires patience. In particular, needle-and-thread and western porcupine grass seed are difficult to harvest due to sharp, hard awns (Barner 2009). Processing is complicated because awns get intertwined, reducing seed flow (Ogle et al. 2006; Bakker 2012).

Plains rough fescue may not produce large volumes of seed every year; however, when it does, plains rough fescue often has a mast-flowering event. Mast-flowering occurs when all occurrences of a species over a large area flower simultaneously. In 2006, plains rough fescue had a mast-flowering event in central Alberta, the first flowering in over 10 years (Desserud 2011). The density of plains rough fescue seeding following the mast flowering event in 2006, allowed Desserud and Naeth (2013a; 2013c) to harvest its seed with an agricultural combine in the Northern Fescue NSR. Nevertheless, occasional rough fescue plants flower every year, and may be harvested by hand (Tannas, S., personal communication. 2010). Desserud (Desserud, P., personal observation, 2010) and Woosaree (Woosaree, J., personal communication, 2013) and Tannas (Tannas S., personal communication, 2013) observed that young plains rough fescue plants flower 3 to 4 years following germination. Wild harvested plains rough fescue germinates readily in greenhouse conditions (Desserud and Naeth 2013c). Desserud and Naeth (2013c) and Sherritt (2012) had success seeding plains rough fescue on reclaimed sites in the Northern Fescue NSR.

Wild harvesting seed presents particular difficulties including uncertainty of the seed maturity dates, variable field conditions, the location of the seed source being not compatible with the reclamation site, the knowledge of the collector, hand-collection methods, and storage methods (Smreciu et al. 2003). In an analysis of germination of wild seed collection of 45 native species from the Central Parkland NSR, Woosaree and James (2004a) found poor germination in the majority of species, possibly due to timing of harvest resulting in collection of un-ripened seeds.



Sometimes germination in controlled environments, e.g. a greenhouse, is not reflected in field conditions. Romo et al. (1991) observed that when moisture is held constant most of the decline in germination of plains roughs fescue was accounted for by seed age. Nevertheless, Desserud (personal communication) and Neville (personal communication) found plains rough fescue germinated on seeded outdoor sites after seven to ten years of storage.

3.1.2 Native Grass hay A variant of wild seed harvesting is cutting hay from native grassland to use as a mulch and seed source. Straw has long been used as a mulch or erosion control mechanism; however, using hay as a seed source is less well known. Hay was used as a seed source in the Central Great Plains after the drought years of the 1930s, yet few reports of using hay as a seed source have been published after the 1940s.

Factors which affect the viability of native hay include the variability of native seed production from year to year, e.g. some species do not produce seed every year; the timing, which will result in the dominance of whichever species have seeded at that time; and methods, such as tackifying, to keep the hay in place (Romo and Lawrence 1990). Another factor is the viability of seed if the hay is stored for future use. Interestingly, Reis and Hofmann (1983) found hay storage of one year did not decrease the amount of seedlings, and actually increased the establishment of some, those which require a period of dormancy. They also recommend cutting hay several times over the summer, storing it and cutting again the following year, to obtain the most diversity of seeds, e.g. different seeding times and years (Reis and Hofmann 1983).

The state of native grassland in close proximity to a disturbance is crucial in determining if native hay is a suitable seed source. Morgan (1995) cautions the large tractors required for native hay harvest may negatively impact native prairie, and that seed to soil contact may be difficult to achieve. In a plains rough fescue hay experiment in the Northern Fescue NSR in 2006, hay cutting was timed for when rough fescue was setting seed, an event that occurred in 2006, but had not occurred for at least five previous years (Desserud and Naeth 2011). Approximately 2.5 times the disturbed area was cut with a modified harvester. Native hay was sprayed upon a newly disturbed pipeline right-of-way and its growth monitored for three years. Seedling emergence from the hay included plains rough fescue , Kentucky bluegrass, June grass, western porcupine grass, yarrow (Achillea millefolium), and other forbs. They concluded native hay is a good seed source for native species in close proximity to a grassland disturbance, if desired species are present (Desserud and Naeth 2011).

3.1.3 Cultivars and Ecovars™ One solution to poor wild seed availability is the cultivation of commercially viable seed from native seed sources to produce a cultivar. A cultivar is a plant variety which has undergone genetic restriction through selection by plant breeders, and which has been registered by a certifying agency (Ferdinandez et al. 2005). However, many cultivars for sale in Canada were developed much further south in the U.S.A. and are structurally different than local plant materials (Kestrel Research Inc. and Gramineae Services Ltd. 2011). Cultivars for several native grasses have been developed in Canada and are widely used in the reclamation industry. For example, Alberta Innovates - Technology Futures researches development of native grass cultivars and is the exclusive licensee for 15 native plant cultivars (Alberta Innovates - Technology Futures 2013).



While cultivation may improve the reliability of seed germination, it often results in a loss of species diversity as a result of genetic shift: the change in the genetic makeup of the line, variety, or hybrid if grown over a long period. For example, Ferdinandez et al. (2005) found an 8% decrease in genetic diversity in a cultivar of awned slender wheat grass (Agropyron trachycaulum ssp. subsecundum AC Pintail) after only two generations. Reduced diversity depends on how intensively the cultivar has been selected. If seeds of the cultivar are grown for further multiplication, it will lead to less diversity over time as the procedure is repeated. To maintain diversity for further production, one has to go back close to the seed source, even to the F1 generation for further multiplication (Woosaree, personal communication, 2014).

The loss of genetic diversity can also be partially offset by the annual infusion of wild harvested seed into the breeding mix (Burton and Burton 2002).

Cultivated rhizomatous wheat grasses, e.g. western wheat grass in particular, may be particularly persistent and could pose problems in native species restoration. In the Rumsey Natural Area, located in the Central Parkland and Northern Fescue regions, Elsinger (2009) found that approximately half of the wellsites, in plains rough fescue grassland, were dominated by western wheat grass and northern wheat grass (Agropyron dasystachyum), persisting for many years following reclamation seeding. As part of commercially available seed mixes, these species most likely were cultivars. Neville and Lancaster (2008) found green needlegrass (Stipa viridula) and prairie sand reed grass (Calamovilfa longifolia) native plant cultivars were persistent and larger than native species on parts of the Express Pipeline in the Northern Fescue NSR.

An ecovar™ is an ecological variety (coined by Ducks Unlimited) of a native plant species selected to produce a population containing maximum genetic variability (Woosaree 2000). Ecovars™ retain much more genetic variety than do cultivars, and theoretically will be more adaptable to environmental changes as a result. The result of a third type of native plant cultivation is termed “ecotype”. An ecotype is generally defined as a distinct genotype within a species, resulting from adaptation to local environmental conditions, and that can interbreed with other ecotypes of the same species (Hufford and Mazer 2003).

Despite their production in a Subregion which differs from their original source, the genetic uniqueness of native plant cultivars can be maintained by completely renewing the breeder plots every two generations with newly collected wild seed (Woosaree, personal communication, 2007). Following a review of ecovar™ and cultivar literature and information, Downing (2004) cautioned “Native cultivar or ecovar™ suitability in one NSR does not necessarily imply suitability in another.” Some successful native plant cultivars that have been grown by Alberta Innovates - Technology Futures include those suitable for Northern Fescue prairie soils, e.g. Canada wild rye (Elymus canadensis), slender wheat grass (Agropyron subsecundum), nodding brome (Bromus anomalous), Indian rice grass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) and blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis). Woosaree (2007a) also established plots of plains rough fescue. Due to concerns about original seed sources for rocky mountain fescue (Festuca saximontana) and widespread substitutions by the seed industry, seeding rocky mountain fescue is not advised.

3.1.4 Seed Mixes and Seeding Rates Seed mixes play an important part in native grass revegetation. Emergence success for any seed mix will reflect the combined ability of individual species to emerge under site conditions (soil, climate, and revegetation practices). All else being equal (i.e. site conditions), the major factors affecting emergence will be seed size and seed dormancy (Woosaree and James 2006).



In a Northern Fescue grassland experiment, Woosaree and James (2004b) compared the recovery of plains rough fescue with three seed mixes:

1) plains rough fescue (67%) and awned wheat grass (33%);

2) plains rough fescue (67%) , green needle grass (17%), slender wheat grass (7%), June grass (Koeleria macrantha; 5%) and western porcupine grass (4%); and

3) a mix of plains rough fescue (67%) and seven native grasses , including the aforesaid species, Northern wheat grass and western wheat grass, and eleven forbs, including golden prairie aster (Heterotheca villosa), American vetch (Vicia americana), and others.

After five years, slender wheat grass (Agropyron trachycaulum) had started to die-back and be replaced by forbs. Plains rough fescue was present, but not dominant in all treatments, though after eight years, it had started to increase, especially in the mix with only slender wheat grass. They concluded the reduced canopy cover afforded by forbs, from the highly diverse seed mix, as well as slender wheat grass replacement, allowed slow growing rough fescue to increase over time. For plains rough fescue they concluded a time period of five years may be too short to observe plant community changes as they started to see an increase in rough fescue only by year eight and nine.

Desserud and Naeth (2013c) had success seeding plains rough fescue in a seeding experiment in the Northern Fescue NSR. Three years after seeding plots with 99% plains rough fescue, they found incursion of several native grasses, e.g. June grass, blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), and western porcupine grass. They concluded the small stature of slow growing plains rough fescue provided sufficient space for other species to become established. In plots seeded with a native mix including 20% plains rough fescue and only 5% slender and western wheat grasses, wheat grasses dominated after 3 years and almost no rough fescue was found. Five years later, slender wheat grass had died back; however, still no rough fescue was found. They concluded the large stature of the initial slender wheat grass stands outcompeted rough fescue in its early stages and prevented its establishment (Desserud and Naeth 2013c), in contrast to Woosaree and James (2004b) findings.

Desserud and Naeth (2013c) conducted a nearest neighbour analysis of plains rough fescue plants and found larger growth when rough fescue grew close to other rough fescue plants or June grass. It had the shortest growth when growing close to wheat grasses.

Sherritt (2012) had success seeding plains rough fescue in a seeding experiment in the Northern Fescue NSR. He compared three seed mixes: plains rough fescue alone, a native mix including 30% plains rough fescue, and plains rough fescue with Dahurian rye (Elymus dahuricus), a common cover crop. He found plains rough fescue grew best when associated with other rough fescue plants or June grass, similar to Desserud and Naeth (2013c) findings. Plains rough fescue did not do well in plots with Dahurian rye, indicating it is not a good cover crop for rough fescue (Sherritt 2012). In a Northern Fescue grassland, a more diverse seed mix resulted in more diverse ground cover (Woosaree and James 2004b).

Hard-coated seeds, for example many Stipa species, such as western porcupine grass, may not germinate in the first year unless scarified. Without seed treatment they should be seeded with non-competitive, early establishers such as slender wheat grass, or forbs such as yarrow to give them a competitive edge after germination in the second year (Nurnberg 1994).



Seeding rates for native grass seed used in the reclamation projects of this review are in the order of 10 kg/ha (Table 3-1). Sinton et al. (1996) recommend a rate of 8 – 11 kg/ha for drilled seeds, cautioning that rates will vary depending on the size and weight of the seed. Some researchers consider this rate to be too high and may inhibit the invasion of native plants onto disturbed sites (Hammermeister and Naeth 1996).

Table 3-1 A Selection of Drill Seeding Rates for Projects in this Review

Source Description and Region kg/ha

Desserud and Naeth (2013c) Wellsite reclamation in Northern Fescue 6.6-15.5 Sherritt (2012) Wellsite reclamation in Northern Fescue 15 Sinton et al. (1996) Native Plants on Disturbed Sites guide 8-11 Sinton (2001) Oil and gas reclamation recommendations 10-12 Woosaree et al. (2004b) Wellsite in Northern Fescue 12-18 Woosaree and James (2006) Wellsite in Northern Fescue 9.9-16 Woosaree (2007b) Pipeline in Northern Fescue 10

Small-seeded species must be seeded at a higher rate than larger-seeded species where a comparable emergence and stand density is desired Woosaree and James (2006). Where recruitment of resident native species is desired, the density of seeded species appears to be more important than initial plant cover, at least in the first establishment year. Using a lighter seeding rate or a seed mix with lower expected emergence success will likely favour local recruitment. This will also allow for smaller plants such as June grass and plains rough fescue to find room to grow (Desserud and Naeth 2013c).

3.1.5 Season of Seeding The best season in which to seed native grasses depends on the species. Generally cool season grasses (C3), e.g. most wheat grasses, plains rough fescue, or June grass benefit from spring or early spring seeding. Nevertheless, Desserud and Naeth (2013c) and Sherritt (2012) had success seeding these species in mid-summer within the Northern fescue NSR. Tannas (2011) successfully planted Foothills rough fescue (Festuca campestris) plugs in July within the Foothills Fescue NSR. Warm season grasses (C4), for example blue grama, benefit from warmer soils in late spring and early summer. Stipa species, for example western porcupine grass or needle-and-thread, prefer late summer or fall seeding (Pahl and Smreciu 1999). Nurnberg (1994) found hard-coated seeds such as Stipa species, may not germinate in the first year unless scarified, which may be the reason for requiring a winter season following seeding. Desserud (personal observation 2011) noted western porcupine grass appeared three years after seeding on a wellsite in the Northern Fescue NSR.



Spring seeding preferences are probably related to higher spring moisture which would favour germination (Grilz 1992). Romo et al. (1991) found plains rough fescue to be particularly sensitive to moisture requirements and that water stress overrides temperature stress and narrows the conditions at which germination will occur. While Tannas (2011) noted Foothills rough fescue responded positively to increased water in greenhouse conditions, he also observed higher soil moisture increased the ability of Kentucky bluegrass to suppress Foothills rough fescue seedlings. Sherritt (2012) had success seeding plains rough fescue in late June and early July and Desserud and Naeth (2013c) had success seeding plains rough fescue in late July and early August in the Northern Fescue NSR.

Soil temperature also plays a role in native seed germination. A higher rate of germination in plains rough fescue can be expected when seedbed temperatures are increasing. Temperatures near 15° C appear to be most favourable for germination (Grilz 1992). Summer dormancy appears to be triggered by moisture stress, since in an experiment, where water was non-limiting, plains rough fescue did not enter dormancy, even at 27°C (King et al. 1998). As a result, in areas with moist summer periods, plains rough fescue may mature the later in the summer, even up to the latter part of July (Pavlick and Looman 1984).

3.1.6 Seed Lot Quality and Viability Stewart (2009) recommends checking any purchased seed for purity, such as foreign or non-seed material, and germination rates. The seed company may provide this information or the seed may be tested by a laboratory (Stewart 2009).

The Seeds Act and Seeds Regulations of Canada establish standards for grading of crop seeds. Crop seeds include the majority of cultivated crops (including forage crops) grown in Canada but does not cover many native species (or non-crop seeds) used for reclamation of native ecosystems.

Current protocols for testing and reporting have some applicability to native reclamation species including; Pure Seed, Weed Seed Count (individual seeds per sample), Inert Matter, Pure Living Seed, Germination, Tetrazolium Chloride Test (TZ test) and Ergot.

Categories of the analysis and reporting methodology that are not applicable or have limited use are: Other Weed Seeds and Other Crop Seeds.

• The Other Weed Seeds category can include non-crop seeds from native sources such as graminoids, forbs and shrubs that are desirable for reclamation and restoration of native plant communities.

• The Other Crop Seeds can include invasive or non-native species and is too general to evaluate potential contaminants of individual invasive species seed, whose size and weight can vary significantly. A misinterpretation of the amount and effects of a contaminant invasive species in a seed lot could lead to reclamation failure through the establishment of a modified native plant community consisting of undesirable species.

Diligence is required when reviewing certificates for native seed lots to identify all undesirable seed impurities detected. Review of seed lot analyses must keep the above factors in mind when assessing seed lots for purchase. In addition, the testing date for Pure Living Seed, Germination and Tetrazolium should be less than two years old. The presence of noxious weeds, invasive agronomic species, persistent non-native species or plant diseases such as ergot, are reasons to decline reclamation seed lots.



3.2 Transplants, Plugs or Sod

3.2.1 Transplants or Sod

Transplant research for grasslands has focused on bunch grasses, with the goal of giving these slow-growing species a head-start in establishment. Petherbridge (2000) reported good early success with rough fescue grassland sod salvage three years following a pipeline restoration in the Northern Fescue NSR. The result was similar for plains rough fescue density on the sod salvage site and the undisturbed native grassland. He noted that the species composition of the sod salvage areas more closely resembled undisturbed grassland than seeded areas in the short term. From results in a Central Parkland site, Petherbridge (2000) cautioned that if the site initially contained many invasive species they can proliferate through sod salvage. Long-term monitoring after 14 years on the Central Parkland site illustrated that the sod salvage procedure favoured the recovery and increase in shallow rooted, rhizomatous non-native grasses over the deep rooted native bunch grasses. The presence of invasive non-native grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass and awnless brome in the stand prior to disturbance severely limits the success of the sod salvage procedure (Kestrel Research Inc. and Gramineae Services Ltd. 2011).

3.2.2 Plugs Plugs are transplants of plants grown in greenhouse conditions from seed, normally in root trainer containers. Transplanting established seedlings has advantages over direct seeding, especially for slow-growing species such as plains or Foothills rough fescue. Such seedlings are allowed to develop in an environment protected from competition and environmental effects, thus avoiding the most vulnerable growth periods (Tannas 2011). Tannas (2011) had success with Foothills rough fescue plugs in a wellsite reclamation experiment in southwestern Alberta. Plugs were seeded and grown for four months prior to transplanting. The four month old plugs showed better drought resistance and competition resistance than three month old plugs. He found Foothills rough fescue plugs had better success than seeding, and also found plugs with larger plant size had the best success (Tannas 2011). Greenhouse plugs of plains rough fescue likely require closer to six months growth prior to planting out as this species has a slower establishment rate than Foothills rough fescue (Tannas 2011).

Climate conditions play an important role in plug survival, possibly even more so than seeds, which may survive dry conditions if not already germinated. Tannas (personal communication) found poor survival of plains rough fescue plugs planted into large surface disturbances in extreme dry conditions following a severe drought during reclamation of a pipeline in the Northern Fescue and Mixedgrass NSRs.

3.3 Competition among Native and Invasive Species Reclamation efforts often must contend with the presence of non-native agronomic grasses, either on the original site, adjacent to it, introduced by grazing cattle or other human activity, including past reclamation practices. Some of these species are well adapted to the black or dark brown soils found in the western and central grasslands, e.g. awnless brome (Bromus inermis), crested wheat grass (Agropyron cristatum), timothy (Phleum pratense) and Kentucky bluegrass.



In an experiment on a wellsite in the Northern Fescue NSR, Desserud and Naeth (2013c) examined competition of plains rough fescue with other native grasses commonly found in reclamation seed mixes. They concluded the large size of slender wheat grass cultivars in the first three years following seeding may have a negative effect on plains rough fescue seedlings. In plots containing slender wheat grass, they found no plains rough fescue. In an analysis of nearest neighbours, they found plains rough fescue does best when in close proximity to other rough fescue plants, June grass or blue grama grass (Desserud and Naeth 2013c).

Sherritt (2012) compared three seed mixes: plains rough fescue alone, a native mix including 30% plains rough fescue, and plains rough fescue with Dahurian rye, a common cover crop. He found plains rough fescue grew best when associated with other rough fescue plants or June grass, similar to Desserud and Naeth (2013c) findings. Plains rough fescue did not do well in plots with Dahurian rye, indicating it is not a good cover crop for rough fescue (Sherritt 2012). Further research is needed to determine if any annual species could provide cover for plains rough fescue establishment.

Invasive species may do more damage than just their presence. In a greenhouse experiment, Jordan et al. (2008) found three invasive plants altered soil properties which negatively affected native species. They assessed soil attribute modifications by awnless brome, crested wheat grass and leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). They found crested wheat grass soil modifications facilitated awnless brome; whereas leafy spurge facilitated both invasive grasses. Crested wheat grass had a negative effect on blue grama, June grass, asters (Aster spp.) and prairie coneflower (Ratibida columnifera). Awnless brome had negative effects on June grass, prairie coneflower and blue flax (Linum lewisii). Leafy spurge had antagonistic effects on all three forbs. On the other hand, needle-and-thread grass, green needle grass (Stipa viridula) and plains muhly grass (Muhlenbergia cuspidata) were relatively insensitive to altered soil properties (Jordan et al. 2008).

In a similar experiment in Wyoming, Mealor and Hild (2007) transplanted needle-and-thread plants from two areas: one invaded by quackgrass (Agropyron repens) and one not invaded. They examined evolutionary traits of needle-and-thread in response to close proximity to quackgrass. Their results showed no difference in needle-and-thread transplants; concluding, needle-and-thread grass is not affected by invasive species.

3.4 Invasive Species Weed control practices are well described by Alberta government guides and enforced by regulating agencies; therefore, this review will not delve into detail regarding weed control. A few studies are presented that give interesting perspectives.

Colonizing weeds, including annuals, winter annuals and biennial plants, usually appear early in disturbance recovery. They may provide soil stability and microsites for perennial grass establishment. Desserud and Naeth (2013c) observed significant cover of annual weeds in the first two years after seeding a wellsite in the Northern Fescue NSR, e.g. flixweed (Descurainia sophia), lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album) or shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris). By the third year, the majority of these weeds had disappeared, being replaced by well established perennial grasses (Desserud and Naeth 2013c). They noted similar results on a pipeline right-of-way seeded with native hay (Desserud and Naeth 2011).



Invasive species, including prohibited noxious and noxious weeds, problem introduced forage species and undesignated weeds of concern in native rangeland are often found on abandoned disturbances and will negatively impact recovery. On a wellsite in the Northern Fescue NSR, Sherritt (2012) concluded the presence of Canada thistle, yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis) and awnless brome (Bromus inermis) negatively impacted establishment of seeded native species, such as plains rough fescue, June grass and possibly Hookers oat grass (Helictotrichon hookeri).

3.5 Soil Management Techniques A diverse vegetation mix is unlikely to develop rapidly unless strategies to initiate diversity are incorporated in the reclamation planning. Such strategies include seedbed preparation through topsoil handling, enhancing the soil chemical and physical properties and improving the nutrient cycle with irrigation or soil amendments.

3.5.1 Handling Topsoil Much of the literature on handling topsoil deals with the effects on the chemical, physical and microbial properties of the soil, and only a few were found with relation to resulting plant growth. Topsoil handling and storage can affect the potential success of disturbance recovery. Iverson and Wali (1982) found that seed bank density in four year old stored topsoil was considerably less than that in adjacent undisturbed prairie in North Dakota. The seeds of some species, e.g. pasture sagewort (Artemesia frigida) did persist up to four years in stored topsoil; however most others did not.

In a wellsite reclamation experiment in the Northern Fescue NSR, Desserud and Naeth (2013a) found pH levels on a wellsite with soil admixing (topsoil mixed with subsoil) ranged between 8 and 9; whereas, native grassland and wellsites with intact topsoil had pH levels around 7. Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) favoured higher pH levels; while plains rough fescue had a negative reaction to pH above 7.5. They recommend no soil admixing in disturbance reclamation to reduce potential Kentucky bluegrass invasion and improve plains rough fescue recovery (Desserud and Naeth 2013a).

3.5.2 Irrigation Because grassland species are adapted to relatively dry conditions, irrigation may not be required to establish native seedlings. Plains rough fescue sets seed erratically, sometimes with 5 to 10 years between seeding events. Palit et al. (2012) tested plains rough fescue seedling reactions to nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation. They found seeding density increased with additional water and actually decreased with nitrogen applications (Palit et al. 2012). Despite being known as a drought tolerant species, Tannas (2011) noted Foothills rough fescue responded positively to increased water in greenhouse conditions.

3.5.3 Soil Amendments Native plant species are generally adapted to nutrient poor conditions. While addition of nutrient and moisture can affect species productivity, it can favor the establishment of non-native invasive species over native species on reclamation sites (Adams, personal communication, 2013).



Blonski et al. (2004) had positive yield results with hog manure application in undisturbed Northern Fescue prairie even in drought years. They applied liquid hog manure once, at rates between 10 and 160 kg/ha, injecting the manure into native fescue grassland in good to excellent ecological condition. In years one and two, all herbage was harvested by clipping, separated into grass, forb or shrub, then dried and analyzed to determine herbage yield and crude protein. They found increased dry matter and crude protein yields for both grasses and forbs in the first year. Despite low rainfall, which should have negatively affected plant growth and primary production, yields continued to increase in the second year following manure application (Blonski et al. 2004). However, this study did not specifically evaluate biodiversity impacts and nutrient additions that are normally discouraged by regulators owing to the potential to shift moisture/nutrient regimes in favor of invasive species.

Larney et al. (2005) examined the effect on soil properties of four topsoil replacement depths and five amendment treatments: compost, manure, straw, alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and hay, aimed at reclaiming three wellsites in south central Alberta (Foothills Fescue and Northern Fescue NSRs). The result was increased organic carbon following the organic amendments. They theorized organic amendments play an important role in improving soil properties related to long-term productivity of reclaimed wellsites, especially where topsoil is scarce or absent (Larney et al. 2005). However, soil quality objectives may have potential negative impacts on plant community integrity and with respect to invasive species.

Desserud and Naeth (2013a) had success establishing plains rough fescue in straw amended soil in the Northern Fescue NSR. They applied straw at two rates – 1.0 kg and 0.5 kg/ha to topsoil replaced wellsites. Barley straw was chopped, sprayed onto the wellsite, and rototilled into the soil. Early in the first growing season, the site was mowed to remove volunteer barley plants germinating from the straw. They compared straw-treated responses to un-treated soil. Straw treatments positively affected growth of rough fescue, slender wheat grass, western wheat grass, June grass and blue grama. Weed cover was reduced on the straw treatments. They cautioned straw must be weed free (Desserud and Naeth 2013a).

Awnless brome had a negative response to straw-amended soil on a wellsite in the Northern fescue NSR (Desserud and Naeth 2010). The results were duplicated in a greenhouse experiment. Desserud and Naeth (2010) hypothesized that awnless brome may have a negative reaction to potassium leached from straw as it decomposes.

Soil amendments may also have little effect on some Northern Fescue grass species. June grass and blue grama did not respond to phosphorous or nitrogen fertilizers, nor to an inoculation of a native soil fungus, Penicittium bilaii, in a study of Manitoba grasslands (Friesen 2002).

3.5.4 Soil Nutrient Depletion Even as late as the 1980s, reclamation practices mirrored agricultural methods. For example, Lloyd (1981) recommended crested wheat grass, among native grasses as a preferred species, and suggested fertilizer would probably be required, especially in Mixedgrass Prairie. More recently, the ability of many native species to out compete introduced species in nutrient poor soils has been recognized, with strong intervention by government regulators to eliminate invasive species like crested wheat grass.



Nitrogen is a key element in grassland ecosystems, because of its capacity to limit primary and secondary production. In a Northern Fescue NSR experiment, Desserud and Naeth (2013a) tested reducing soil nitrogen to assist plains rough fescue and other native grass establishment and impede Kentucky bluegrass. They incorporated chopped wheat and barley straw at three rates (1 kg/m2, 0.5 kg/m2 and none) into soil as an amendment on reclaimed wellsites. Plains rough fescue responded well to the straw amendment and lowered nitrogen; however, Kentucky bluegrass showed no trends one way or another (Desserud and Naeth 2013a). Desserud (2011) noted June grass, western wheat grass and blue grama also responded well to reduced nitrogen. Slender wheat grass performed well in all treatments.

3.6 Effects of Grazing Animal herbivory, in particular cattle and wild ungulates, is a factor in grassland reclamation. Cattle are known to congregate on disturbed sites, probably attracted by the young growth, and may adversely affect the establishment of native grasses (Naeth 1985). Adler et al. (2001) examined the literature on the spatial patterns of grazing. Most studies conclude patch grazing, common in cattle grazing, alters plant communities and successional patterns. Fencing requirements will depend on the nature of the grazing operation being impacted by the development, ranging from simple deferral of grazing to one or more years of protection. Recent experience with wellsite reclamation in Alberta grasslands suggest that fences likely need to be removed after the initial season of growth, preventing an excessive build up of litter or residue and encouraging other native species to infill onto the reclaimed area.

In a Saskatchewan Mixedgrass experiment, Pantel et al. (2011) examined responses of northern wheat grass (Agropyron dasystachyum) and western porcupine grass following mowing during various months. Northern wheat grass showed no difference in recovery the year following mowing any month between April and October. Western porcupine grass, on the other hand, had poor recovery the year following mowing in August or September, and good recovery if defoliated April to July or October. They recommended western porcupine grass dominated grassland should be rested to at least one year if grazed in August or September.

Pantel et al. (2010) examined recovery of a Saskatchewan Mixedgrass NSR grassland on different slope aspects over 3 years following mowing a single time between April and October. The grassland was dominated by northern wheat grass, plains rough fescue and western porcupine grass. They recommended grazing be deferred for at least one year following mowing, especially if on north-facing slopes, or if grazing was in April, July, or August (Pantel et al. 2010).

Rotational grazing regimes may contribute to the success or failure of reclaimed native grassland. For example, plains rough fescue is suited to late summer, autumn and winter grazing (Horton 1992).

Long-term grazing can alter the species composition of grassland. Slogan (1997) documented the changes in species composition in rough fescue grassland in Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba, over an twenty-two year period from 1973 to 1995. He discovered a decline in the abundance of plains rough fescue (Festuca hallii), a large increase in Kentucky bluegrass, and the presence of awnless brome, which was not present in 1973. Awnless brome was probably a direct result of cattle grazing (Slogan 1997).



3.7 Natural Recovery The earliest examples of natural recovery in Alberta, whereby a disturbed site is reclaimed with no intervention, are the results of cultivated land abandoned and left to recover naturally. Natural recovery could result in an effective, though potentially slow native prairie recovery, with reduced revegetation and invasive species management costs. Coupland (1961) observed significant natural recovery of Mixedgrass prairie with the rate of recovery being influenced by the size of the disturbance, the time since abandonment and the supply of native seed stock. Conversely, the length of time may delay the issuance of a reclamation certificate and expose the site to erosion and invasive species establishment (Hammermeister and Naeth 1996). A number of factors affect potential success of natural recovery of RoWs from disturbance such as soil type, seed production on the site, range condition, proximity to undesirable vegetation species, length of soil storage, seasonal timing of soil replacement, exposure of the site to wind and water erosion, and pasture management (Lancaster et al. 2012).

Desserud and Naeth (2013b) and Elsinger (2009) monitored natural recovery of three pipelines in the Northern Fescue NSR. Pipelines were constructed with three techniques: plough-in, narrow topsoil strip, and “ditch-witch”. All techniques resulted in cover similar to undisturbed grassland. Plains rough fescue recovered best on plough-in pipelines, with little recovery on “ditch-witch” pipelines, which were dominated by western and northern wheat grasses. They concluded reducing sod disturbance contributed to plains rough fescue recovery, where intact sod would result in intact root structure. Plough-in had the most intact sod and the “ditch-witch” method had the greatest sod break-up (Desserud and Naeth 2013b).

Six natural recovery trials were established on the Express Pipeline in southern Alberta to evaluate the ability of the RoW to naturally revegetate without active re-seeding, relying on the existing seed bank and natural encroachment for seed material (AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2003). Sites were located in the Northern Fescue grassland, in the Montane on mountain rough fescue grassland and in the Dry Mixedgrass on sandy and on solonetzic soils. Disturbances between 10 m and 30 m wide and 30m long, on sandy soils, Solonetzic soils, wetlands Solonetzic soils and Dark Brown Chernozems in the Montane and Central Parkland were selected for the natural recovery trials. Reclamation techniques employed included straw crimping, straw crimping knolls and imprinting the seeded surface with a patterned roller (Accuroller) to create micro-relief. Six sample sites were established in each of the natural recovery trials representing each of the reclamation techniques. The sites were monitored over five years, during years 1, 2, 3, and 5 of post-construction (AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2003). Sites were re-monitored again at 14 years of post-construction (Neville and Lancaster 2008).

On the Express pipeline, natural establishment of vegetation on the disturbed, unseeded soils of the RoW varied in different NSRs. Trials on sandy soils were the most successful, with vegetation cover 10 percent greater on the unseeded sites than on seeded sites five years after construction. Native vegetation on sandy soils showed the greatest ability to recover quickly from short-term disturbance. Vegetation recovery from the seed or propagule bank resulted in 71 percent cover after five years while seeded soils resulted in a cover of 61 percent. More species were represented on the natural recovery sites than on the seeded sites (AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2003).

Fourteen years following construction on the Express Pipeline seeded species such as sheep fescue (Festuca ovina) and green needle grass persisted. Plains rough fescue was found on Northern Fescue NSR sites, either from seeding or natural recovery (Appendix A). On one site, invasive non-native species including Kentucky bluegrass and awnless brome were found encroaching from adjacent areas (Neville and Lancaster 2008).



Natural recovery will be influenced by the species composition of adjacent grassland and by the topography of the site. In a seeding and natural recovery experiment on a wellsite in the Northern Fescue region (Neutral Hills, Alberta) a natural recovery site was affected by its position, low on a slope with a mesic moisture regime, and the proximity of non-native species in the adjacent grassland. The resulting cover, ten years following reclamation, was predominately awnless brome with smaller amounts of Kentucky Bluegrass, both favouring moist locations (Fitzpatrick 2005).

Ten years recovery of one seeded block was predominately rough fescue, with other native species such as western porcupine grass, pasture sage (Artemisia frigida), and slender wheat grass making up the majority of the remaining cover. A third block also had plains rough fescue and slender wheat grass but also many undesirable forbs, e.g. Canada thistle, a noxious weed (Fitzpatrick 2005).

In natural recovery, early seral species, such as pasture sage, may appear (Woosaree and James 2006). Early seral forbs that are the first to colonize a disturbed site are often species considered to be weeds. Woosaree and James (2006) found annual weeds such as Russian pigweed (Axyris amaranthoides) and stinkweed (Thlaspi arvense) cover reached up to 31% in the first year following seeding and was even higher in natural recovery areas. They concluded these weeds were not a concern since they were annuals and would soon be replaced by perennial grasses.

On a pipeline in the Bodo Hills in the Northern Fescue NSR, Woosaree (2007b) compared natural recovery to two seed mixes. One seed mix had 50% plains rough fescue with 25% wheat grasses, while the second had 30% plains rough fescue and 5% wheat grasses. An assessment by Desserud and Naeth (2013b) ten years later showed good recovery of plains rough fescue (14% cover) on the natural recovery sites; however, no plains rough fescue on either of the seeded sites. Other species found on the natural recovery sites included Northern and Western wheat grass, June grass, pasture sage and plains muhly (Muhlenbergia cuspidata).



4 2013 MONITORING STUDIES

4.1 Monitoring Site Selection Special Areas was the first jurisdiction in Alberta to recognize the need to use a seed mix composed of native species in reclamation mixes to “protect our dwindling native grasslands from further loss”. In the mid-1990s the Land Conservation and Reclamation Council provided a list of “acceptable native and native friendly species to be used in the reclamation of surface disturbances”. They recommended four seed mixes for use on Loamy, Sandy, Saline and Solonetzic Clay locations and described methods for establishment and seeding rate.

The oil and gas industry were not required to use native or “native compatible” seed mixes for reclaiming wellsites in native grassland in Alberta until 2001. Several of the non-native compatible species have turned out to be invasive over time, such as hard fescue (Festuca duriuscula) and sheep fescue. Others are persistent on the landscape (maintaining themselves indefinitely on a site once established) such as meadow brome (Bromus biebersteinii), tall wheat grass (Agropyron elongatum) and intermediate wheat grass (Agropyron intermedium). As such, they create permanent changes in plant community composition and structure and create trending-to-modified or modified plant communities over time.

A list of potential wellsites to monitor long-term recovery of sites reclaimed with native seed mixes was developed from Special Areas and ESRD data files. Potential monitoring locations were selected within the Northern Fescue NSR from ESRD and Special Areas databases with the following filters:

• Inactive MSL’s (reclaimed wellsites) within the Northern Fescue NSR or current reclamation applications;

• Within areas mapped as native grassland or on grazing leases;

• Reclamation sites older than 5 years with dispositions issued after 1994 at a minimum and post-2001 ideally for requiring seeding with native seed;

• Sites certified after 2003;

• Stripped wellsites, since these have the most consistent reclaimed surface for comparison between sites;

• Pastures with range condition scores of “healthy” or “healthy with problems”;

• Sites with better documentation; and

• Sites where land owners or lessees could be contacted to agree to land access.

From this subset, 49 sites were selected for assessment. Information on reclamation details for each site were in most cases sparse or absent for older sites. A lack of documentation of reclamation site history prior to the initiation of the reclamation certification process was a gap identified during the 2013 monitoring study.



Monitoring surveys were conducted July 29th – Aug 2nd, 2013. Twenty-four sites were assessed (Appendix B.2: Table B.2-3). Despite the age of the wellsites between 1994 and 2007, the great majority of reclaimed wellsites turned out not to be native plant communities, although they were located in grazing leases or on Public Land. Some sites were located in tame pasture, others in native grassland were seeded to native compatible species, forages, or invaded by agronomic grasses, particularly awnless brome and sheep fescue. Detailed transects (Appendix B.1) were inventoried at two of the 23 grassland sites, where the surrounding native prairie was in good health. The other was a seeded flow line with trench width disturbance on a Loamy range site (seed mix composition unknown).

Several drilling companies and a pipeline company active in the NSR were also approached directly to participate in the data collection project. Apache Canada, CNRL and TransCanada provided access, historical project information, reclamation information, expertise and sponsorship to the project.

4.2 Data Collection Methods Monitoring sites were established on existing wellsites and pipelines of various ages in each upland Ecological Range Site type in the Northern Fescue NSR. Sites were sought with available information on site history and reclamation treatments where possible (Appendix B).

For each assessment (disturbance and control), a 30 metre long transect comprised of ten micro-plots were installed to record vegetation species diversity and foliar cover estimates. The controls were an adjacent undisturbed plant community within the same ecological range site to compare vegetation cover, range health and reclamation progress.

Site locations were recorded using hand-held GPS units. Photographs were taken to document each site. A one metre square frame was placed directly over the disturbance and again at the control and photographed from above. A second photo was taken looking along the transect with the frame in the foreground. A third photograph was an oblique view of the Daubenmire frame.

Vegetation inventories were conducted using micro-plot sampling for species composition and canopy cover. A 20 cm x 50 cm Daubenmire frame was used for grassland communities and a 1 m x 1 m for shrubs. Ten frames were inventoried for each transect. Percentage foliar cover estimates of all vascular vegetation species, clubmoss, moss, lichen, litter and bare ground were recorded.

Data was recorded using standard ESRD – Rangelands MF5 range inventory forms and submitted to ESRD for entry into their Ecological Site Information System (ESIS) vegetation database.

A range health assessment was also conducted on disturbed soils and the undisturbed reference, based on the current manual developed by ASRD and LandWise Inc. (2010). Range health assessment provides perspective on the range capability of reclaiming communities. This technique also links current land use to the condition of the reclaiming grassland.

Data was interpreted in the context of tools developed for classifying rangelands including; Grassland Vegetation Inventory (GVI) mapping of ecological range sites (ASRD and LandWise Inc. 2010), AGRASID and the “Northern Fescue Range Plant Community Guide” (Kupsch et al. 2012), which links naturally occurring plant communities to ecological range sites. In the event that a plant community did not correlate to a plant community in the guide, then a name was assigned to the community based on what appeared to be key indicator or dominant species. The plant community name included the word “conditional” as an indicator of no known range plant community to date for the subregion.



4.3 Results Summary

4.3.1 Influence of Non-native and Native Compatible Seed Mixes Older seed mixes from the 1980s and 1990s with high wheat grass concentrations and composed in part of non-native “compatible species” such as hard fescue, sheep fescue, meadow brome, intermediate wheat grass and tall wheat grass, have created permanent changes in plant communities. Compatible seeded species were part of the seed mixes appropriate to the time period (prior to 2010) or as outlined in historical agreements with the Land Manager. These species could be comprised of agronomics that were suitable for grazing purposes and native species but not be native to the subregion. These results are consistent between large surface disturbances from large diameter pipelines (Appendix B.1), full width stripped wellsites and small disturbances of 3m2 to 4 m2 for minimal disturbance wellsites (Appendix B.2).

Wellsites seeded with non-native sheep fescue and hard fescue in a native grass seed mix had lower range health scores. These non-native hard fescues are highly palatable to livestock as they appear lush and green through most of the growing season. However they are quite resilient to grazing pressure, often to the detriment of other seeded native cultivars and native infill species on the recovering disturbance.

Many sites with invasive species establishment from seed mix components or common contaminants, like quackgrass and awnless brome, are now trending-to-modified plant communities. These changes to altered communities are likely to be permanent without significant and costly intervention.

4.3.2 Influence of Adjacent Disturbances on Revegetation of Disturbed Topsoil To examine the influence of adjacent disturbances on the potential for restoration of disturbed topsoil, a series of sites were examined from parallel large diameter pipeline RoWs in the Northern Fescue NSR (Appendix B.1). Three pipelines of different construction ages, in a common corridor, were assessed. Construction dates were 1956, 1961, 1991 and 2009. Early construction methods with limited soil conservation would have been implemented on the pipelines with 1956 and 1961 construction dates. Where the terrain was challenging, the right of way was graded to allow the passage of equipment required to install the pipe. In level terrain the soil disturbance was mainly confined to the width of the trench. Portions of both pipelines appeared to have been seeded to agronomic species such as awnless brome, likely at the request of the landowners. On many natural recovery sites on the older lines, needle-and-thread and western porcupine grass, desirable infill native grasses and indicators of recovery, were dominant. These lines were built at a time when there was less disturbance on the landscape and natural recovery had some success.

Soil conservation methods were implemented throughout the 1991 pipeline right-of-way. However, this pipeline was one of the first pipelines constructed with an awareness of the need to minimize disturbance to the native grassland soils and vegetation. Detailed soil handling procedures were implemented to reduce the disturbance to the native grassland vegetation and soils. This RoW was seeded to a mix of native grass cultivars and agronomic species suitable for grazing. This type of seed mix was typical of mixes from the 1980s and 1990s, and included awnless brome, non-native sheep and hard fescues and native cultivars such as western and northern wheat grass. These seeded cultivars and agronomics have altered successional trajectories away from restoration of pre-disturbance native grassland communities and created permanent changes in community composition. Many sites with invasive species establishment from seed mix components or common contaminants like quackgrass (Agropyron repens) and awnless brome are now trending-to-modified species composition.



If older RoWs successfully revegetate to native cover they pose less risk to newer adjacent disturbances. Adjacent reclaimed vegetation composition can affect infill species composition on more recent large diameter pipeline RoWs. The three year old large diameter pipeline RoW which is immediately adjacent to the older lines, was seeded to several native seed mixes designed for a variety of range sites. On most sites a predictable early successional plant community dominated by seeded species, Green Needle Grass - Slender Wheat Grass – Northern wheat grass is present. Influence from adjacent invasive species is not prominent after three years, but may become more problematic with time. The most invasive species infilling on newer disturbances from older disturbances are awnless brome and Kentucky bluegrass. Three years after seeding, the larger differences in species composition appear to be due to reclamation treatments rather than infill from adjacent older pipeline RoWs.

Data collected from the 2013 field monitoring sites (Appendix B.1) documented four agronomic species that were seeded as non-native compatible species when recommended species were not available prior to 2010: sheep fescue, intermediate wheat grass, meadow brome and hard fescue.

No prohibited noxious weeds were reported from the 2013 monitoring sites. Noxious weeds reported included Canada thistle and perennial sow thistle (Sonchus arvensis). Wellsites and pipelines monitored in 2013 all reported herbicide control for broadleaf weeds. These herbicides do not control invasive agronomic grass species such as awnless brome, Kentucky bluegrass or crested wheat grass.

4.3.3 Recovery of Minimal Disturbance Wellsites Development of minimal disturbance wellsites in native prairie is now standard practice for the majority of the oil and gas industry. This has resulted in much smaller areas of disturbed topsoil on wellsites and clusters of additional types of lesser disturbance including compaction and pulverization of vegetation.

Monitoring on two minimal disturbance wellsites owned by CNRL in the Neutral Hills on Sandy and Loamy range sites identifies much better restoration success on the minimal disturbance portion of the wellsites, where topsoil was not disturbed (Appendix B.2). For both the 56 year old disturbance and the 10 year old disturbance, minimal disturbance practices have resulted in recovery of the plant community composition and health to equivalent to off-site conditions, but not the disturbed topsoil areas. The most common challenge for restoration on disturbed topsoil in the Northern Fescue NSR is preventing the establishment of invasive non-native species.

Mechanisms that introduce non-native species to a site include:

• Non-native and native compatible seed mixes;

• Seed mix contaminants (Appendix A.1 and Appendix B.1);

• Additions of topsoil to a site (Appendix B.2);

• Infill from surrounding modified or trending-to-modified plant communities; and

• Transport by vehicles, animals and people.

Multiple treatments over several years are often required to promote a positive successional pathway towards restoration. For example, a topsoil disturbance on a wellsite on a Sand range site (Appendix B.2, CNRL02) was seeded three times over four years (2000 – 2003), straw crimped for erosion control in 2001, and treated with herbicide to manage broadleaf weeds in 2003. With this intensive adaptive management, the plant community developing on the disturbance is similar to the undisturbed area.



5 MULTIPLE PROJECT MONITORING STUDIES

5.1 Multiple Project Data Collection Methods Vegetation inventory data from recovering industrial disturbances and associated controls in the Northern Fescue NSR was acquired from several sources in addition to the field data collected in 2013 by the project team. A cluster analysis was conducted to compare disturbed sites and controls (Appendix C).

5.2 Data Analysis and Interpretation

5.2.1 Cluster Analysis and Plant Community Ordination Methods Detailed descriptions of the methods and results of the cluster analysis and ordination are presented in Appendix C. Several Grassland Vegetation Inventory (GVI) range site types were included in the cluster analysis including; Loamy, Overflow, Sandy and Blowout range sites with better soil development. These range sites were judged to be of similar productivity for comparison. An ordination illustrated fairly tight grouping of undisturbed control sites across these range site types, confirming the validity of combining them in the analysis. Cluster analysis of the control data resulted in eight species groupings, which were correlated with range plant communities described in the Northern Fescue Range Plant Community Guide (Kupsch et al. 2012). Control range plant communities and associated seral stage are presented in Table 5-1. Detailed descriptions for control clusters are presented in Appendix C: C.3.

Table 5-1 Control Plant Communities Correlated to the Northern Fescue NSR Range Plant Community Guide

Community Code Range Plant Community Seral Stage Control

Cluster NFA1 high Plains Rough Fescue – Western Porcupine Grass Reference (Lo 1) 1 NFA1 low Plains Rough Fescue – Western Porcupine Grass - grazed Reference (Lo 1) 2 NFA2 Plains Rough Fescue - Kentucky Bluegrass Late seral 6 NFC2 Snowberry/Plains Rough Fescue - Kentucky Bluegrass Mid-seral 7 NFA7 Western Porcupine Grass - Plains Rough Fescue Reference (Lo 2) 8 NFA10 Plains Rough Fescue - Sedge Reference (BlO) 8 NFA8 Sedge - Plains Rough Fescue - Western Porcupine Mid-seral 4 NFA9 Festhal Blue Grama – Sedge – (Plains Rough Fescue) Early to mid seral 5 NFA9 Stipcur Blue Grama – Sedge – (Western Porcupine Grass) Early to mid seral 3

A total of 179 sites compatible with the Loamy range site were included in the analyses. Disturbance data was collected primarily from areas where topsoil was disturbed and replaced during construction. Several data sets are also from minimal disturbance areas such as access roads and unstripped portions of wellsites. The data set includes data from undisturbed controls, large diameter pipelines, flow lines and wellsites, and encompasses a variety of ages, construction methods and reclamation treatments.

An initial cluster analysis of the entire data set, including undisturbed and disturbed site observations indicated that none of the disturbed sites clustered with the controls; whereas, undisturbed control sites across these range site types were fairly tight clustering, with no obvious outliers on a range site basis.



5.2.2 Assessment of Successional Stage Succession is a process defined as the gradual replacement of one plant community by another over time. Seral stages are measures of succession used to describe the state and health of a plant community. More mature seral stages have greater range health and greater ability to perform ecological functions, including; net primary production, maintenance of soil/site stability, capture and beneficial release of water, energy and nutrient cycling and plant species functional diversity (Adams et al. 2013).

Assessing the seral stage on disturbance plant community clusters was based on species cover and composition, and an understanding of species persistence (for example annual weeds versus persistent long-lived species versus invasive species). Definitions for plant community seral stages on disturbed topsoil (Table 5-2) have been developed based on long-term reclamation monitoring on the Express Pipeline project (Kestrel Research Inc. and Gramineae Services Ltd. 2011). Invasive non-native species are known to replace native species and establish permanent dominance in grassland communities. Reclaiming grassland sites where invasive non-native species occupy greater than 5% of the total live cover are at risk of succession to non-native modified plant communities.

Table 5-2 Definitions for Plant Community Seral Stages on Disturbed Topsoil

Seral Stage Description

Bare ground < 5% cover of live vegetation.

Pioneer Site dominated by annual weeds, a cover crop or first year seeded colonizing grasses such as slender wheat grass.

Early seral Site dominated by disturbance forbs such as pasture sagewort and other species such as low sedge. Seeded species and colonizing grasses such as spear grasses also establishing.

Mid-seral Cover of grasses greater than that of disturbance forbs such as the sageworts; decreaser grasses present as a small component of the cover.

Late mid-seral

Cover of grasses greater than that of disturbance forbs such as the sageworts; decreaser grasses occupy about 50% of the cover; infill species present.

Late Seral - native

Cover of long-lived grass species expanding; native species cover from the seed bank established; slower establishing infill species present; decreaser grasses dominant; no more than one structural layer missing.

Late Seral - cultivars

Cover of long-lived grass species expanding; seeded cultivars clearly still dominant; slower establishing species such as fescues present; decreaser grasses dominant; no more than one structural layer missing.

Reference Community closely resembles the ecological site potential natural community under light disturbance described in the Range Plant Community Guides.

Trending-to-Modified *

A primarily native plant community where non-native species are increasing over time and occupying > 5% of the total live cover; the succession time scale is as little as 5 and as many as 20 years or more.

Modified > 70% cover of non-native species.

5.2.3 Influence of Ecodistrict on Range Plant Community The location of control plant communities was not correlated to Ecodistrict. Similar undisturbed plant communities were found on Loamy, well developed Blowouts, Overflow and Sandy ecological range sites across each of the Ecodistricts sampled, including the Drumheller Plain, Endiang Upland, Neutral Hills, Oyen Upland and Wintering Hills.



5.3 Successional Plant Communities following Disturbance on Loamy Range Sites

Cluster diagrams (Appendix C.5) were produced for undisturbed monitoring sites and recovering disturbances associated with each control plant community (Table 5-1). The diagrams illustrate relationships between species cover and composition on disturbances and undisturbed sites. Across the range of control plant communities, most of the revegetation treatments (including seeded and natural recovery sites) are not clustering closely with the controls, indicating that species composition and cover on the reclaiming disturbance sites are not similar to the undisturbed plant community. However, many of the treatments appear similar to one another.

5.3.1 Time frame for Recovery None of the disturbance plant communities are equivalent in composition, structure or range health to undisturbed control areas or to native plant communities described in the Northern Fescue Range Plant Community Guide (Kupsch et al. 2012), although some may be trending in this direction (Table 5-3). Only one of the sixteen groupings of disturbance plant communities from the cluster analysis (Plains Rough Fescue - Green Needle Grass - Slender Wheat grass) is categorized as a mid- to late seral plant community (Table 5-3). Succession to later seral stages appears to be slower on Loamy range sites in the Northern Fescue NSR as compared to Mixedgrass seeded sites, where forty percent of all sites where disturbed topsoil was seeded developed into a late seral plant community after 14 years (Kestrel Research Inc. and Gramineae Services Ltd. 2011). However, half of the undisturbed control Northern Fescue range plant community types assessed are also in early to mid-seral or mid-seral successional stages (Table 5-1). Plant communities at an earlier successional stage often have lower range health. Lower range health can affect the diversity and supply of propagules available to naturally revegetate a site. Longer time frames required for native grassland plant communities to recover following industrial disturbance mean that exposed soils are vulnerable for longer periods of time to colonization by invasive species. For example, early seral disturbance cluster 8 (Table 5-4), a Snowberry - Kentucky bluegrass shrubland community, is composed of eight older sites (33-55 years) which appear to have stabilized as an early seral native/non-native community.

5.3.2 Influence of Site Health on Recovery Disturbance plant communities were more likely to develop native plant communities if range health scores for the comparable control were “healthy” or “healthy with problems”. However, trending-to-modified plant communities and modified plant communities can result whether range sites are healthy or not.

5.3.3 Influence of Invasive Species About 29% of the observations in the full data set of 179 disturbance monitoring sites are plant communities that have greater than 70% relative cover of non-native vegetation (modified) or greater than 5% cover of persistent or invasive non-native species (Table 5-3). Dominant cover species of primary concern are the seeded non-native bunchgrass sheep fescue and aggressive rhizomatous grasses including awnless brome, Kentucky bluegrass and quackgrass.



5.3.4 Natural Recovery Of the 36 observations of natural recovery sites in the combined data set, sixteen sites (44%) were trending-to-modified or modified plant communities. This recovery strategy represents a significant risk in the Northern Fescue NSR. Twenty-five sites (9%) were early or early to mid-seral plant communities and eleven sites (31%) had developed into mid-seral or late seral native plant communities. An assessment of the resiliency of sites where natural recovery is proposed, in terms of range health and the potential for invasive species incursion from surrounding areas, is necessary to assess the risk of failure.

Table 5-3 Successional Plant Communities following Disturbance on Loamy Northern Fescue NSR Sites

Seral Stage Reclaiming Plant Community # of Observations

Disturbance Cluster

pioneer Pasture Sagewort - Slender Wheat grass 11 13A

early to mid-seral Pasture Sagewort - Slender Wheat grass - Foxtail Barley 16 15

early to mid-seral Pasture Sagewort - Green Needle Grass - Awned Wheat grass 11 14

early to mid-seral Slender Wheat grass - Green Needle Grass 17 1

early seral Snowberry - Kentucky Bluegrass 4 8

mid-seral Slender Wheat grass - Green Needle Grass - Plains Rough Fescue 13 2

mid-seral Green Needle Grass - Western Wheat grass - Awned Wheat grass 12 6

mid-seral Western Wheat grass - Northern Wheat grass - Western Porcupine Grass 9 11

mid-seral Northern Wheat grass - Western Porcupine Grass - Low Sedge 17 12

mid- to late mid-seral Plains Rough Fescue - Green Needle Grass - Slender Wheat grass 17 5

mid-seral to trending-to-modified Pasture Sagewort - Slender Wheat grass 11 13B

trending-to-modified Awnless Brome - Slender Wheat grass - Kentucky Bluegrass 16 4

trending-to-modified Kentucky Bluegrass - Western Wheat grass 11 9

trending-to-modified Sheep Fescue - Western Wheat grass 5 7

modified Quackgrass - Kentucky Bluegrass 4 10

modified Awnless Brome - Kentucky Bluegrass 5 3



5.3.5 Native Seed Mixes Dominant seeded species on older sites are green needle grass, northern wheat grass and western wheat grass, which when persisting may express as much taller and more dominant cover than local native seed stock. They are species and cultivars that typically have been most available over the past 20 years. Green needle grass is prominent on both younger and older sites and is represented above natural cover levels (Table 5-4). Similar long-term persistence and cover were observed on the Express Pipeline after 14 years in a variety of range sites (Kestrel Research Inc. and Gramineae Services Ltd. 2011). Northern wheat grass and awned wheat grass are in the top three cover species on several early to mid-seral disturbance plant communities. Western wheat grass is also able to persist with aggressive agronomic grasses on older trending-to-modified sites.

5.3.6 Infill An important early seral infill (spreading from undisturbed cover to the disturbance or from the seed bank) species in the Northern Fescue NSR is western porcupine grass. It is present in newer seed mixes but has also re-established successfully through infill on large diameter pipelines where topsoil was replaced in the same season after construction. It may take two or three seasons to become established if seeded; however, once established, it will persist on the site, providing diversity and structure and resilience to grazing.

Table 5-4 Descriptions of Reclamation Treatments associated with Successional Plant Communities Following Disturbance on Loamy Northern Fescue NSR Sites

Seral Stage

Reclaiming Plant

Community Description

Comment (treatment & age)

# of Obser-vations

Distur-bance Cluster

pioneer Pasture Sagewort - Slender Wheat grass

Plant communities with relatively low total vegetation cover (10%); including low cover of native and seeded grasses, annual weeds and infill forbs

1 to 2 years since reclamation (Cluster 13 Subset A; 11 of 22 obs.)

11 13A

early to mid-seral

Pasture Sagewort - Slender Wheat grass - Foxtail Barley

Native plant community dominated pasture sagewort at 15.0% cover, slender wheat grass at 5.6% cover and foxtail barley at 5.8% cover

Native grass seed mixes, two diverse mixes of native grasses and forbs (ARC and collected,) and natural recovery; 9 of 16 sites are 1 or 2 years since reclamation and 7 of 16 sites are 3-5 years since reclamation

16 15

early to mid-seral

Pasture Sagewort - Green Needle Grass - Awned Wheat grass

Pasture sagewort established from infill. Seeded green needle grass and awned wheat grass are the dominant grasses; Plains rough fescue cover at 4.5% and constancy of 90.9% is associated with seeded treatments

Native grass seed mixes, two diverse mixes of native grasses and forbs (ARC and collected,) and natural recovery; Observations primarily 2-5 (13) years after reclamation.

11 14



Seral Stage

Reclaiming Plant



# of Obser-vations


early to mid-seral

Slender Wheat grass - Green Needle Grass

Dominated by seeded species and minor cover of pasture and prairie sagewort; 13 of 17 observations appear to be on a positive trajectory to native dominated plant communities while 4 sites are trending-to-modified

2-5 years since reclamation

17 1

early seral

Snowberry - Kentucky Bluegrass

Shrubland community dominated by buckbrush, common wild rose and Kentucky bluegrass or quackgrass

Older sites (33-55 years); appears to have stabilized as an early seral native/non-native community

4 8

mid-seral Slender Wheat grass - Green Needle Grass - Plains Rough Fescue

Dominated by seeded species including seeded plains rough fescue

13 2

mid-seral Green Needle Grass - Western Wheat grass - Awned Wheat grass

Dominated by seeded green needle grass, western wheat grass and awned wheat grass

Observations reclaimed with native grass seed mixes and agronomic seed mixes (may include native grasses) Observations 3 - 55 years after reclamation

12 6

mid-seral Western Wheat grass - Northern Wheat grass - Western Porcupine Grass

Dominated by western wheat grass from infill and seed mixes with lesser cover of Northern wheat grass and June grass; Western porcupine grass present as infill

2 of 7 sites trending to a modified plant community; Kentucky bluegrass and sheep fescue are the dominant non-native species associated the trending-to-modified communities

9 11

mid-seral Northern Wheat grass - Western Porcupine Grass - Low Sedge

Native plant community. Northern wheat grass and western porcupine grass established from infill and /or seed mixes, low sedge from infill; Plains rough fescue averaged 4.5% cover with a constancy of 58.8% and highly variable regarding site treatment and year since reclamation

Native grass seed mixes, agronomic seed mixes (may include native grasses) and as natural recovery; Observations 6 - 55 years following reclamation

17 12



Seral Stage

Reclaiming Plant



# of Obser-vations


mid to late mid-seral

Plains Rough Fescue - Green Needle Grass - Slender Wheat grass

Native plant community dominated by plains rough fescue and seeded green needle grass and slender wheat grass, Western porcupine grass was present but at low cover and constancy

Dominance of plains rough fescue in this cluster may be due to minimal disturbance construction and / or superior reclamation practices

17 5

mid-seral to trending-to-modified

Pasture Sagewort - Slender Wheat grass

Includes observations with relatively low total vegetation cover (48%) 3 to 10 years since reclamation. Sites have low cover values for native and seeded grass species and high relative cover of non-natives species (18%)

Other disturbances such as moderate grazing pressure may be a factor in reducing cover and desirable species

11 13B

trending-to-modified

Awnless Brome - Slender Wheat grass - Kentucky Bluegrass

Dominated by invasive species awnless brome, Kentucky bluegrass and to a lesser extent quackgrass, alfalfa and crested wheat grass

Observations on primarily older sites; 3 sites 5 years old or less. 9-55 years old

16 4

trending-to-modified

Kentucky Bluegrass - Western Wheat grass

24% relative cover of non-natives species, including Kentucky bluegrass (19%), awnless brome (3%) and sheep fescue (1%)

Kentucky bluegrass present in 7 controls, absent in 4 controls but present in the adjoining disturbances

11 9

Trending-to-modified

Sheep Fescue - Western Wheat grass

56% relative cover of non-native species, including sheep fescue (32%), meadow brome (7%), intermediate wheat grass (2%) and Kentucky bluegrass (1%)

Older sites (19-51 yrs) reclaimed with a mix of agronomic and native grass species

5 7

modified Quackgrass - Kentucky Bluegrass

Dominated by quackgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, sweet clover, dandelion, and to a lesser extent, awnless brome

Observations 8-38 years after reclamation, with native and compatible agronomic species mixes, an agronomic mix and a native mix

4 10

modified Awnless Brome - Kentucky Bluegrass

Dominated by invasive species, seeded or infilled; awnless brome, Kentucky bluegrass, sheep fescue quackgrass, intermediate wheat grass, crested wheat grass and sweet clover

Older sites, surveyed 12 and 18 years since reclamation

5 3



5.4 Beneficial Reclamation Practices - Positive Recovery of Plant Communities on Loamy Range Sites

5.4.1 Diverse Seed Mixes Recovering plant communities with promising recovering plant community composition are highlighted in the sites and treatments associated with the mid- to late seral recovering plant community cluster, Plains Rough Fescue - Green Needle Grass - Slender Wheat grass (Table 5-3).

This cluster of 17 observations (Appendix C.4 Disturbance Cluster 5) is composed of sites reclaimed with a variety of native grass seed mixes and a diverse mix composed of native grasses and ten forbs (Table 5-5 and Appendix D.1). All the Alberta Research Council (ARC), now known as Alberta Innovates - Technology Futures (AI) sites had 67% plains rough fescue in the seed mixes (Appendix C.1).

Vegetation monitoring transects were completed between 4 and 30 years following reclamation with the majority sampled 12 and 13 years after seeding, when slow growing late seral species like plains rough fescue have become established.

The cluster represents a native plant community dominated by plains rough fescue at 22% cover and seeded grasses green needle grass and slender wheat grass at 11% and 6 % cover, respectively. Western porcupine grass is present at low cover, averaging 3% with a constancy of 47%. The seeded native wheat grasses and green needle grass are present at lower cover than earlier seral clusters.

Dominance of plains rough fescue in this cluster could be due to minimal disturbance construction, high proportions of plains rough fescue in the seed mixes or superior reclamation practices. Desserud and Naeth (2013) observed that seed mixes with no or little wheat grass components may allow rough fescue time to become established by the third year, with reduced competition from fast-growing wheat grasses (Appendix E). The ARC / AI seed mixes that show good establishment of plains rough fescue also had low composition of wheat grasses in mixes M01 and M02 (Appendix D).

Desserud’s 2013 rough fescue seeding study (Appendix E) demonstrated that the success of plains rough fescue establishment with little competition underscores the importance of reducing the amount and number of aggressive species in rough fescue grassland reclamation seeding. While monoculture seeding of plains rough fescue is not practical due to low seed availability and high cost, seed mix performance may improve by reducing or eliminating wheat grasses, and instead use other native grasses common in the area.

Prairie and pasture sageworts are the dominant native infill forbs, followed by wild vetch and common yarrow which could have come from native infill or the diverse seed mix treatment, or both. Inclusion of forbs in seed mixes may be beneficial to increase diversity. Long-term monitoring of infill on a BlO range site on the Express pipeline illustrated that infill of perennial forbs other than the disturbance sageworts is lacking after 14 years (1% cover) compared to the undisturbed grassland (14.5% cover) (Appendix A: Figure A.1-4). Forb cover was compared on four revegetation trials established by ARC on three wellsites in mesic plains rough fescue grassland settings (Appendix D:D.2). The trials included a natural recovery site, and three seed mixes including a simple grass mix, a diverse mix including 10 forbs, and a reclamation mix with only two species, plains rough fescue and slender wheat grass (Appendix D:D.1).



Forb cover was greatest and most consistent on the reference site, averaging between 30% and 40% cover. The cover of disturbance forbs may contribute to high forb cover levels on the seeded and natural recovery sites. Forb cover appears to decline on the natural recovery site and the simple mix site. Forb cover increases over time on the reclamation mix site, where only plains rough fescue and slender wheat grass were seeded. The forb cover is more stable with less fluctuation on the diverse mix site. The diverse seed mix included 10 forb species.

In the mid to late seral recovering plant community cluster, Plains Rough Fescue - Green Needle Grass - Slender Wheat grass (Table 5-3), 12 of the observations appear to be on a positive trajectory to native dominated plant communities. Kentucky bluegrass and awnless brome as individual or combined were present in 5 out of 12 sites at 3% to 5% cover. The remaining 4 observations are trending-to-modified with Kentucky bluegrass and awnless brome as individual or combined at 7% to 23% cover. This illustrates that despite best practices, managing invasive species is critical in the Northern Fescue and surface disturbance poses significant restoration challenges.

The risks associated with restoring surface disturbances are mitigated by minimal disturbance construction techniques. Desserud followed recovery of three newly-constructed pipelines in the Rumsey Natural Area which were left to natural recovery (Appendix F). Third year results were combined with Elsinger’s (2009) data of natural recovery pipelines constructed between 1983 and 2000. Each of the pipelines was installed in a narrow trench, about 80 cm wide. Five of the pipelines were installed using a plough-in technique. A plough creates a narrow trench the width of the bucket, pipe is fed into the trench, and soil and sod are allowed to fall back into place. Six pipelines were topsoil-stripped, where topsoil was stripped from the trench and replaced following pipe installation. Two pipelines used ditch-witch construction, with a trencher that chops sod, mixing it with trench soil, and the broken sod/soil mix is used to cover the pipe.

Despite differences in specific species, all natural recovery pipelines had something in common with undisturbed grassland. They all have significantly more native species and few non-native species, such as Canada thistle, Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa) and awnless brome (Appendix F: Figure F.1).



Table 5-5 Treatments and Site Conditions Associated with a Recovering Mid- to Late Seral Disturbance Community (disturbance cluster 5)

Monitoring Site ID Disturbance Treatment Years Since

Reclamation Control Plant Community

Control Community Seral Stage

AIHH04M01 Wellsite ARC Simple Seed mix 9 NFA9 Feha Early to mid seral

AIHH07M01 Wellsite ARC Simple Seed mix 12 NFA1 high Reference (Lo 1)

AIHH08M01 Wellsite ARC Simple Seed mix 13 NFA1 low Reference (Lo 1)

AINH04M01 Wellsite ARC Simple Seed mix 9 NFA9 Feha Early to mid seral



AIHH07M02 Wellsite ARC Diverse Seed mix 12 NFA1 high Reference (Lo 1)

AIHH08M02 Wellsite ARC Diverse Seed mix 13 NFA1 low Reference (Lo 1)

AINH04M02 Wellsite ARC Diverse Seed mix 9 NFA9 Feha Early to mid seral

AINH07M02 Wellsite ARC Diverse Seed mix 12 NFA9 Feha Early to mid seral

AIHH07M03 Wellsite ARC Reclamation mix 12 NFA1 high Reference (Lo 1)

AINH08M03 Wellsite ARC Reclamation mix 13 NFA9 Feha Early to mid seral

APAC02R Wellsite Full width strip; seeded 20 NFA7 Reference (Lo 2)

ELPL09D Pipeline Topsoil stripping, likely natural recovery 30 NFA1 high Reference (Lo 1)

ELWS05D Wellsite Minimal disturbance, Natural recovery 4 NFA1 low Reference (Lo 1)

ELWS21D Wellsite ??

NFA1 low Reference (Lo 1)

HUSK732R Wellsite Seed Mix 7 NFA7 Reference (Lo 2)

5.4.2 Use of Plains Rough Fescue Seedlings (Plugs) Use of plugs or seedlings can provide a competitive advantage for slow growing species like rough fescue and can be used to increase diversity on a site, for instance with forb plugs. The data set for the three year old large diameter pipeline includes observations of 28 sites three years after plains rough fescue seedlings (plugs) were planted along with a native seed mix containing plains rough fescue seed (Appendix B.1). Sixty-four percent of the resulting plant communities are on a positive successional pathway and vary from early to mid-seral, and mid-seral successional stages. Plains rough fescue is not dominant on any sites but this is to be expected given the age of the sites and slow growth rates of rough fescue. Several direct observations of plug material during the third year monitoring document their persistence on the seeded RoW. Two sites have stalled at an early seral stage as a community where Kentucky bluegrass is dominant. Twenty-nine percent of the sites are mid-seral to trending-to-modified, or trending-to-modified, indicating a negative trajectory with greater than 5 percent invasive species present on site. These results illustrate that use of seedlings will not outcompete invasive species and emphasize the need for control of invasive species establishment before reclamation and thorough adaptive management after initial reclamation.



6 KEY FINDINGS AND GAP ANALYSIS From the literature, data analysis and case studies

6.1 Restoration Potential The monitoring studies support the conclusion from Elsinger 2009, that with few exceptions, disturbed soils support different plant communities than undisturbed soils. The productive soils of the Northern Fescue NSR have resulted in conversion and fragmentation from multiple land uses, principally agriculture. The health of the range before disturbance affects the ability of a disturbed area to respond and can affect the outcome of restoration. However, even healthy rangelands are vulnerable to invasive species establishment in a fragmented landscape. Invasive species are ubiquitous and major barriers to restoration in the Northern Fescue NSR. Re-introducing native plant materials to soil disturbances is needed to compete with invasive species.

6.2 Succession Succession to later seral stages appears to be slower on Loamy range sites in the Northern Fescue NSR as compared to Mixedgrass seeded sites, where forty percent of all sites where disturbed topsoil was seeded developed into a late seral plant community after 14 years (Kestrel Research Inc. and Gramineae Services Ltd. 2011). However, half of the undisturbed Northern Fescue range plant community types assessed are also in early to mid-seral or mid-seral successional stages. Plant communities at an earlier successional stage often have lower range health. Lower range health in adjoining native prairie can affect the diversity and supply of propagules available to naturally revegetate a site. Longer time frames required for native grassland plant communities to recover following industrial disturbance mean that exposed soils are vulnerable for longer periods of time to colonization by invasive species.

6.3 Seeding

6.3.1 Cultivars Cultivars for several native grasses are available in Canada and are widely used in the reclamation industry. However, many were developed much further south in the U.S.A and are structurally different than local plant materials. In Alberta successful native plant cultivars have been developed by the Alberta Research Council (now Alberta Innovates - Technology Futures). While cultivars may improve the reliability of seed germination, it often results in a loss of species diversity as a result of genetic shift (Woosaree 2007a). To maintain diversity for further production, one has to go back close to the seed source, even to the F1 generation for further multiplication (Woosaree, personal communication, 2014).

Observation and analysis of the 2013 field monitoring and from the Express Pipeline assessment and 2013 monitoring studies found that seeded non-native species such as sheep fescue and hard fescue will persist. Cultivars, such as green needle grass, may also dominate and persist over time (Kestrel Research Inc. and Gramineae Services Ltd. 2011). Dominant seeded cultivars on older sites are green needle grass, northern wheat grass and western wheat grass. They often persist at higher than natural cover levels due to expansion or high seeding rates. Western wheat grass is also able to persist with aggressive agronomic grasses on older trending-to-modified sites.



6.3.2 Wild harvested seed Wild harvested seed presents particular difficulties including uncertainty of the seed maturity dates, variable field conditions, location of the seed source being not compatible with the reclamation site, the knowledge of the collector, hand-collection methods, storage methods and unreliable germination.

During a mast-flowering event for plains rough fescue, seed density may be sufficient for mechanical harvesting (Desserud and Naeth 2013c).

Native hay may be a viable technique for ensuring a reliable seed source that is adapted to local site conditions, but its success depends on the variability of native seed production from year to year, e.g. some species do not seed every year; the timing, which will result in the dominance of whichever species have set seed at that time; and methods, such as crimping, to keep the hay in place (Desserud and Naeth 2011).

6.3.3 Plains Rough Fescue Locally developed plains rough fescue cultivars and wild harvested seed can produce a rough fescue plant community over time. However, seeded wheat grasses can inhibit establishment of seeded rough fescue.

Gaps • Improved seed mix quality is needed including:

- Locally developed cultivars/ecotypes; and

- Wild harvested seed.

• What are the consequences of planting native cultivars from one NSR in a different NSR, or cultivating native cultivars from one natural region in a different natural region?

• Native seed collection could be incorporated into planning for development in an area, for example by harvesting native seed prior to development and storing it for reclamation use. Cutting and storing hay several times over a summer might be a useful technique.

• Plant cultivars should be periodically renewed with wild varieties to prevent establishment of aggressive traits, such as large size or prolific seed production.

6.4 Seed Mixes and Rates Recommendations for seed mixes include:

• use proportionally less rhizomatous wheat grasses, e.g. western or northern wheat grass;

• use a more diverse seed mix and incorporate native species, and

• use broadcast seeding, which allows the incorporation of small native seeds (Hammermeister et al. 2003).

Slender wheat grass, although dying out within five years, may impede the establishment of slow-growing species such as plains rough fescue (Desserud and Naeth 2013c).

Seeding rate recommendations for native species have traditionally been around 10 – 15 kg/ha depending on seeding methods. Seeding rate should reflect the health of the surrounding community and the opportunity for infill or expression of a viable seedbank in the exposed soils to be seeded.



Gaps • Little research exists regarding optimal seed mixes or seeding rates for any of the NSRs. What

are the habitat requirements for specific native grassland species?

• Recommended seeding rates may be too high to allow infill or too low to create an effective barrier to erosion. What seeding rates are most effective and how do they differ by subregion?

• What effects do tall cultivars, e.g. slender wheat grass, have on rough fescue establishment?

• What native forb seed can be raised or harvested and added to seed mixes to improve diversity?

• How effective is top dressing a seeded site with additional seed or species in the years following to ensure infilling and establishment of native species?

6.5 Season of Seeding The best season in which to seed native grasses depends on the species. Cool-season grasses (C3), including most wheat grasses, rough fescue and June grass, benefit from spring or early spring seeding, whereas warm-season grasses (C4), such as blue grama benefit from warmer soils in late spring and early summer. Nevertheless, several authors had success with mid-summer seeding of cool-season grasses (Tannas 2011; Sherritt 2012; Desserud and Naeth 2013c).

Gaps • While the biology of cool and warm season species is well known, the application of seasonality

to seeding has been little studied. Include the preferred season for seeding based on the native species in the area.

6.6 Seed Lot Quality and Viability Prior to purchase or mixing, all reclamation seed lots should be tested by a certified seed testing laboratory for purity, such as foreign or non-seed material, invasive agronomics, plant diseases and germination rates. However, the Seeds Act and Seeds Regulations of Canada (Government of Canada 2014), which establishes standards for grading of crop seeds, does not cover many native species (or non-crop seeds) used for reclamation of native ecosystems. Diligence is required when reviewing certificates for native seed lots to identify all undesirable seed impurities detected. The testing date for Pure Live Seed, Germination and Tetrazolium should less than two years old. The presence of noxious weeds, invasive agronomic species, persistent non-native species or plant diseases such as ergot, are reasons to decline reclamation seed lots.

Gaps • Presently, there isn’t a set of standards for grading and testing native seed. The present

procedure for testing native seed is based primarily on the standards established by the Canada Food Inspection Agency for crop seed. Reporting categories of the analysis methodology that are not applicable or have limited use are; Other Weed Seeds and Other Crop Seeds.

- The Other Weed Seeds category can include non-crop seeds from native sources such as graminoids, forbs and shrubs that are desirable for reclamation and restoration of native plant communities.

- The Other Crop Seeds can include invasive or non-native species and is too general to evaluate potential contaminants of individual invasive species seed, whose size and weight can vary significantly.



6.7 Transplants and Seedlings Use of plugs or seedlings can provide a competitive advantage for slow growing species like rough fescue and can be used to increase diversity on a site, for instance with forb plugs. Several research projects have shown that native grass species, especially perennial bunch grasses, can be successfully transplanted or grown as plugs in greenhouses and planted. These projects were all small scale, e.g. Montane transplant project with bluebunch wheat grass and Richardson’s needlegrass, plains rough fescue and Foothills rough fescue cuttings from mature plants in the Foothills Fescue NSR (Best and Bork 2003; Tannas 2011). Sod salvage has also had some success in the short term, again on a small scale (Petherbridge 2000). However, sod is vulnerable to invasion by rhizomatous species like brome and Kentucky bluegrass and favors survival of shallow-rooted species rather than deep-rooted species like rough fescue and other bunch grasses.

6.8 Plant Competition Attempts to reduce or eradicate non-native grasses in native grasslands have met with little success since some non-native species are too aggressive to be completely eliminated once established (Desserud and Naeth 2013b).

Common cover crops, e.g. Dahurian rye, may actually reduce the establishment of some species, such as plains rough fescue (Sherritt 2012).

Gaps • The difficultly in eliminating several non-native species once they are established (e.g. awnless

brome, Kentucky bluegrass) emphasizes the avoidance of those species in revegetation projects.

• Is it possible that some aggressive invasive species may alter soil properties to the detriment of native grasses?

• Education and enforcement will be required to ensure only native species are seeded or transplanted where native grassland/riparian/forested areas are disturbed, or to rehabilitate sites in native grassland that had been improperly reclaimed with invasive species.

6.9 Soil Management Techniques Topsoil storage may have a negative effect on seedbank viability and recovery (MacKenzie 2013). Most successful recovery appears to be in minimal disturbance conditions, e.g. no-strip or natural recovery (Desserud et al. 2010; Desserud and Naeth 2013b).

Altered pH in admixed soil may adversely affect native species and facilitate establishment of invasive species, such as Kentucky bluegrass (Desserud 2011).

Gaps • While minimum disturbance is known to result in the best recovery, what other techniques are

required and in what conditions? For example, erosion control or stream bank stabilization may require more intensive intervention.

• Further research into the effects of soil properties, e.g. pH on native species establishment.



6.10 Soil Amendments Nutrient additions to soils are normally discouraged by regulators owing to potential negative impacts on native plant community integrity and the potential to shift moisture/nutrient regimes in favor of invasive species. Native grassland plants are generally adapted to nutrient poor conditions and outcompete introduced species in nutrient-poor soils. While addition of fertilizers and moisture may increase plant productivity, it can favor the establishment of non-native invasive species over native species on reclamation sites.

Straw amendment to reduce soil nitrogen may facilitate native species establishment and hinder some invasive species, such as awnless brome (Desserud and Naeth 2010; Desserud and Naeth 2013a).

Gaps • Further research into the soil property changes of straw amendment and the effect on awnless

brome.

6.11 Effects of Grazing At least one year of no grazing is recommended following native grass establishment. Season of grazing and slope of disturbance may also affect recovery. Disturbance plant communities can affect grazing response and have long-term effects on pasture management. Palatability and life cycle can affect how grazers utilize a pasture. Species like sheep fescue and hard fescue green up earlier and can attract grazers to the disturbance, creating more pressure on the reclaiming site compared to the surrounding native plant community.

Fencing requirements will depend on the nature of the grazing operation being impacted by the development, ranging from simple deferral of grazing to one or more years of protection. Recent experience with wellsite reclamation in Alberta grasslands indicates that most fences need to be removed after the initial season of growth, preventing an excessive build up of litter or residue and encouraging other native species to infill onto the reclaimed area.

6.12 Natural Recovery Natural recovery in areas of healthy grassland may result in an effective, though potentially slow native prairie recovery, with reduced revegetation and invasive species management costs. However, monitoring results show that there is a significant risk of invasion by undesirable, persistent or invasive non-native species on natural recovery sites in the Northern Fescue NSR. Of the 36 observations of natural recovery sites in the combined data set, sixteen sites (44%) were trending-to-modified or modified plant communities. This recovery strategy represents a significant risk in the Northern Fescue NSR. An assessment of the resiliency of sites where natural recovery is proposed, in terms of range health and the potential for invasive species incursion from surrounding areas is necessary to assess the risk of failure.

The length of time required for natural recovery of exposed soil may delay the issuance of a reclamation certificate and expose the site to erosion and weeds. The nature of disturbance may also affect the results of natural recovery. If deep-rooted species such as plains rough fescue roots are disturbed by sod chopping, e.g. “ditch-witch”, it may not recover (Desserud and Naeth 2013b).

Gaps • Natural recovery may be considered the best solution for long-term recovery; however, it is not

suitable in all situations. More analysis is required to determine the consequences of allowing a site to recover naturally rather than with assistance.



6.13 Persistent and Invasive Non-native Species The most common challenge for restoration on disturbed topsoil in the Northern Fescue NSR is preventing the establishment of invasive non-native species. Persistent and invasive non-native species create permanent changes in plant community composition and structure and can transition to modified plant communities over time. Awnless brome and Kentucky bluegrass are problematic regardless of revegetation method. Other common invasive species include sheep fescue, hard fescue, Canada thistle, quackgrass, sweet clover and crested wheat grass. Adaptive management and treatment over several years are often required to promote a positive successional pathway towards restoration.

6.14 Infill An important early seral infill species is western porcupine grass, which is found in the majority of the late seral to reference plant communities of the Northern Fescue NSR. It is present in newer seed mixes but has also re-established successfully through infill on large diameter pipelines where topsoil was replaced in the same season after construction. It may require two to three seasons to become established from seed; however, once established, it will persist on the site, providing diversity and structure and resilience to grazing.

Recovery of perennial forbs other than the disturbance colonizing sageworts is lacking on sites where grass seed mixes are used. Inclusion of forbs propagules in reclamation mixes can increase diversity on recovering disturbances.

6.15 Time frame for Recovery Succession to later seral stages appears to be slower on Loamy range sites in the Northern Fescue NSR as compared to Mixedgrass seeded sites, where forty percent of all sites where disturbed topsoil was seeded developed into a late seral plant community after 14 years (Kestrel Research Inc. and Gramineae Services Ltd. 2011). However, half of the undisturbed control Northern Fescue range plant community types assessed are also in early to mid-seral or mid-seral successional stages.

Healthy native grassland communities include tall graminoids and forbs, medium height graminoids and forbs, ground cover of low graminoids, forbs, moss and lichen, and may include low shrubs as structural layers. Diversity in the canopy structure provides resilience to herbivory and climate events. Typically, reclaiming sites on disturbed soils lack a groundcover layer after 14 years or longer. Prairie selaginella, mosses and lichen are the major components of this layer. Bare soils were still more prevalent on the recovering RoWs after many years, which contribute to reduced health scores.

6.16 Reclamation Documentation and Monitoring Lack of documentation of reclamation prescriptions and activities, particularly for wellsites and smaller pipelines is a gap when assessing successful versus less successful reclamation practices.



7 REFERENCES Achuff, P. 1994. Natural Regions, Subregions and Natural History Themes of Alberta (Revised). Alberta

Environmental Protection, Parks Service. Edmonton, Alberta.

Adams, B.W., G. Ehlert, C. Stone, M. Alexander, D. Lawrence, M. Willoughby, D. Moisey, C. Hincz, A. Burkinshaw, Jennifer Carlson and Kevin France. 2009. Range Health Assessment for Grassland, Forest and Tame Pasture. Public Lands and Forests Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Pub. No. T/044

Adams, B.W., J Richman, L. Poulin-Klein, K. France, D. Moisey and R.L. McNeil. 2013. Rangeland Plant Communities for the Mixedgrass Natural Subregion of Alberta. Second Approximation. Rangeland Management Branch, Policy Division, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Lethbridge, Pub. No. T/03940 103pp.

Adler, P.B., Raff, D.A. and Lauenroth, W.K. 2001. The Effect of Grazing on the Spatial Heterogeneity of Vegetation. Oecologia 2001: 465-479.

Alberta Innovates - Technology Futures. 2013. Native Plants. Vegreville, AB. http://www.albertatechfutures.ca/RDSupport/BioandIndustrialTechnologies/BioresourceTechnologies/CropandMicrobialFeedstocks/NativePlants.aspx. [Accessed March 15, 2013].

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) and LandWise Inc. 2010. Grassland Vegetation Inventory (GVI) Specifications. 5th Edition.90 pages. Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

ASRD (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development) 2007. Range Survey Manual for Alberta Rangelands. Rangeland Management Branch. Edmonton, Alberta. Pub. No.: I/176.

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2003. Express Pipeline Ltd. environmental monitoring final report. Prepared for Terasen Pipelines (Formerly Express Pipeline, a division of Alberta Energy Company Ltd. and TransCanada Pipelines Ltd.). Calgary, AB.

Bakker, J. 2012. Plant Propagation Protocol for Pacific Northwest Plants. Washington University,Seattle, WA. https://courses.washington.edu/esrm412/protocols/protocols_files/graminoids.htm. [Accessed March 6, 2013].

Bakker, J.D., Wilson, S.D., Christian, J.M., Li, X., Ambrose, L.G. and Waddington, J. 2003. Contingency of Grassland Restoration on Year, Site, and Competition from Introduced Grasses. Ecological Applications 13: 137-153.

Barner, J. 2009. Propagation Protocol for Production of Hesperostipa Comata Seeds; USDA FS - R6 Bend Seed Extractory, Bend, Oregon. In: Native Plant Network. University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources, Forest Research Nursery,Moscow, ID. http://www.nativeplantnetwork.org/Network/ViewProtocols.aspx?ProtocolID=3781. [Accessed March 9, 2013].

Best, J.N. and Bork, E.W. 2003. Using Transplanted Plains Rough Fescue (Festuca hallii [Vasey] Piper) as an Indicator of Grazing in Elk Island National Park, Canada. Natural Areas Journal 23: 202-209.

Blonski, L.J., Bork, E.W. and Blenis, P.V. 2004. Herbage Yield and Crude Protein Concentration of Rangeland and Pasture Following Hog Manure Application in Southeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 84: 773-783.



Burton, P.J. and Burton, C.M. 2002. Promoting Genetic Diversity in the Production of Large Quantities of Native Seed. Ecological Restoration 20: 117-123.

Coupland, R.T. 1961. Reconsideration of Grassland Classification in the Northern Great Plains of North America. Journal of Ecology Vol. 49, No. 1 (Feb., 1961), pp. 135-167.

Desserud, P.A. and Naeth, M.A. 2010. Awnless Brome: an Unexpected Response to Straw-amended Soil (Alberta). Ecological Restoration 28: 133-135.

Desserud, P.A. 2011. Rough Fescue Ecology and Restoration in the Central Parkland and Northern Fescue Regions of Central Alberta. Dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 216 pp.

Desserud, P. and Naeth, M.A. 2011. Promising Results Restoring Grassland Disturbances with Native Hay (Alberta). Ecological Restoration 29: 215-219.

Desserud, P. and Naeth, M.A. 2013a. Establishment of a Native Bunch Grass and an Invasive Perennial on Disturbed Land Using Straw-amended Soil. Journal of Environmental Management 114: 540-547.

Desserud, P. and Naeth, M.A. 2013b. Natural Recovery of Rough Fescue (Festuca hallii (Vasey) Piper) Grassland After Disturbance by Pipeline Construction in Central Alberta, Canada. Natural Areas Journal 33: 91-98.

Desserud, P. and Naeth, M.A. 2013c. Promising Results with Rough Fescue (Festuca hallii) Seeding Following Disturbance in Central Alberta. Native Plants Journal 14: 25-31.

Desserud, P., Gates, C.C., Adams, B. and Revel, R.D. 2010. Restoration of Foothills Rough Fescue Grassland Following Pipeline Disturbance in Southwestern Alberta. Journal of Environmental Management 91: 2763-2770.

Downing, D. 2004. Ecovars™, Native Plant Cultivars, Site Restoration, and Genetic Integrity: an Information Review. Prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Edmonton, AB. 18 pp.

Dunster, J.A. and K.J. Dunster. 1996. Dictionary of Natural Resource Management. UBC Press. Vancouver.

Elsinger, M. 2009. Reclamation Status of Plains Rough Fescue Grasslands at Rumsey Block in Central Alberta after Oil and Gas Wellsite and Pipeline Disturbance. Thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 247 pp.

Elsinger, M. 2009. Reclamation Status of Plains Rough Fescue Grasslands at Rumsey Block in Central Alberta After Oil and Gas Well site and Pipeline Disturbance. Thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 247 pp.

Ferdinandez, Y.S.N., Coulman, B.E. and Fu, Y. 2005. Detecting Genetic Changes Over Two Generations of Seed Increase in an Awned Slender Wheat Grass Population Using AFLP Markers. Crop Science 45: 1064–1068.

Fitzpatrick, C. 2005. Neutral Hills Wellsite Recovery Project Vegetation Survey and Range Health Summary. Unpublished report, prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Lethbridge, AB. 4 pp.



Friesen, G.M. 2002. Native Grasses: Improving the Seedling Vigor and Seed Production of Blue Grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and Prairie Junegrass (Koeleria macrantha) Ecovarstm. University of Manitoba, 162 pp.

Government of Alberta. 2010. Weed Control Regulation, Weed Control Act. Regulation 19/2010. Alberta Queen’s Printer, Edmonton, Alberta. Available at: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/acts6156

Government of Canada. 2014. Seeds Act and Seeds Regulation of Canada. R.S., c.S-7, s.1. Minister of Justice. Ottawa. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Grilz, P.L. 1992. Ecological Relations of Bromus inermis and Festuca altaica subsp. hallii. Thesis. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK.

Hammermeister, A.M. and Naeth, M.A. 1996. The Native Prairie Revegetation Research Project: Description of Reclamation Practices and Research Sites in the Dry Mixed Grass Natural Subregion. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). Edmonton, AB. 74 pp.

Hammermeister, A.M., Naeth, M.A., Schoenau, J.J. and Biederbeck, V.O. 2003. Soil and Plant Response to Wellsite Rehabilitation on Native Prairie in Southeastern Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 83: 507–519.

Horton, P.R. 1992. Some Effects of Defoliation on Plains Rough Fescue (Festuca hallii (Vasey) Piper) in Central Alberta. Dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 300 pp.

Hufford, K.M. and Mazer, S.J. 2003. Plant Ecotypes: Genetic Differentiation in the Age of Ecological Restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 147-155.

Iverson, L.R. and Wali, M.K. 1982. Buried, Viable Seeds and Their Relation Revegetation After Surface Mining. Journal of Range Management 35: 648-652.

Jordan, N.R., Larson, D.L. and S.C., H. 2008. Soil Modification by Invasive Plants: Effects on Native and Invasive Species of Mixed-grass Prairies. Biological Invasions 10: 177-190.

Kestrel Research Inc. and Gramineae Services Ltd. 2011. Long-term Recovery of Native Prairie from Industrial Disturbance; Express Pipeline Revegetation Monitoring Project 2010. Prepared for: Kinder Morgan Canada, TransCanada PipeLines, ConocoPhillips Canada and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Public Lands Division. Available at http://www.foothillsrestorationforum.ca

King, J.R., Hill, M.J. and Willms, W.D. 1998. Temperature Effects on Regrowth of 3 Rough Fescue Species. Journal of Range Management 51: 463-468.

Kupsch, T.T., K. France, J. Richman and R. McNeil. 2012. Rangeland Plant Communities and Range Health Assessment Guidelines for the Northern Fescue Natural Subregion of Alberta. Rangeland Management Branch, Lands Division, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Red Deer, Alberta. Pub. No. T/265. 77pp.

Lancaster, J., Neville, M. and Hickman, L. 2012. Long-term Revegetation Success of Industry Reclamation Techniques for Native Mixedgrass Prairie: Cypress Uplands and Majorville Uplands. Prepared for Petroluem Technology Alliance Canada (PTAC). http://www.foothillsrestorationforum.ca. [Accessed January 31, 2013].

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/acts6156

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/

http://www.foothillsrestorationforum.ca/



Larney, F.J., Akinremi, O.O., Lemke, R.L., Klaassen, V.E. and Janzen, H.H. 2005. Soil Responses to Topsoil Replacement Depth and Organic Amendments in Wellsite Reclamation. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 85: 307-317.

Lloyd, D.A. 1981. Reclamation of Industrially Disturbed Sandy Soils in Southeast Alberta. University of British Columbia. Vancouver, BC. 94 pp.

MacKenzie, D.D. 2013. Oil Sands Mine Reclamation Using Boreal Forest Surface Soil (LFH) in Northern Alberta. Dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 256 pp.

McCune, B. and J. B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USA (www.pcord.com) 304 pages. With a contribution by Dean L. Urban.

Mealor, B.A. and Hild, A.L. 2007. Post-invasion Evolution of Native Plant Populations: a Test of Biological Resilience. Oikos 1493-1500.

Morgan, J.P., Collicutt, D.R. and Thompson, J.D. 1995. Restoring Canada's Native Prairies. A Practical Manual. The Manitoba Naturalists Society,Winnipeg, MA. http://www.npss.sk.ca. [Accessed January 16, 2013].

Naeth, M.A. 1985. Ecosystem Reconstruction Following Pipeline Construction through Solonetzic Native Rangeland in Southern Alberta. Thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Natural Regions Committee 2006.Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta. Pub. No. T?852

Neville, M. and Lancaster, J. 2008. Field Observations of the Recovery of Native Rangeland Plant Communities on Express Pipeline. Pincher Creek, AB. Pp. 30.

Neville, M., Adams, B.W., and Lancaster, J. 2013. Recovery Strategies for Industrial Development in Native Prairie for the Dry Mixedgrass Natural Subregion of Alberta. Prepared for Range Resource Management Program, Lands Division, ESRD, Lethbridge. 134pp.

Nurnberg, D. 1994. Germination, Productivity, Survivorship and Competitive Ability of Six Native Grass Species from the Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie for Use in Prairie Vegetation Restoration. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 168 pp.

Ogle, D.G., Majerus, M.E., St, J., L., Tilley, D. and Jones, T.A. 2006. Needle-and thread. Hesperostipa comata. USDA NRCS Plant Guide. http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg_heco26.pdf. [Accessed March 6, 2013].

Pahl, M.D. and Smreciu, A. 1999. Growing Native Plants of Western Canada: Common Grasses and Wildflowers. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Edmonton, AB. 118 pp.

Palit, r., Cahill, J.F. and Lamb, E.G. 2012. Irrigation But Not N fertilization Enhances Seedhead Density in Plains Rough Fescue (Festuca hallii). Grass and Forage Science 68: 120-124.

Pantel, A., Romo, J.T. and Bai, Y. 2010. Plant Production After Defoliation of Native, Northern Mixed Prairie on a Hummocky Terrain in Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 90: 421-433.

Pantel, A.W., Romo, J.T. and Bai, Y. 2011. Above-ground Net Primary Production for Elymus lanceolatus and Hesperostipa curtiseta After a Single Defoliation Event. Rangeland Ecology and Management 64: 283-290.



Pavlick, L.E. and Looman, J. 1984. Taxonomy and Nomenclature of Rough Fescues, Festuca altaica, F. campestris (F. scabrella var. major), and F. hallii, in Canada and the Adjacent Part of the United States. Canadian Journal of Botany 62: 1739-1749.

Petherbridge, W.L. 2000. Sod Salvage and Minimal Disturbance Pipeline Restoration Techniques: Implications for Native Prairie Restoration. Thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

R Core Team (2013). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.

Reis, R.E. and Hofmann, L. 1983. Numer of Seedlings Established From Stored Hay. Western Michigan University. Kalamazoo, MI.

Romo, J. and Lawrence, D. 1990. A Review of Vegetation Management Techniques Applicable to Grasslands National Park. Canadian Parks Service technical Report 90-1/GDS. Environment Canada. Saskatoon, SK. 63 pp.

Romo, J.T., Grilz, C.J. and Young, J.A. 1991. Influences of Temperature and Water Stress on Germination of Plains Rough Fescue. Journal of Range Management 44: 75-81.

Sherritt, D.E. 2012. Festuca hallii (vasey) Piper (plains rough fescue) and Festuca campestris Rydb. (Foothills rough fescue) Responses to Seed Mix Diversity and Mycorrhizae. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 84 pp.

Sinton Gerling, H., Willoughby, M.G., Schoepf, A., Tannas, C. and Tannas, K. 1996. A Guide to Using Native Plants on Disturbed Lands. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and Alberta Environmental Protection. Edmonton, AB. 247 pp.

Sinton, H.M. 2001. Prairie Oil and Gas: A Lighter Footprint. Alberta Environment. Edmonton, AB. 67 pp.

Slogan, J.R. 1997. Long-term Vegetation Dynamics of Plains Rough Fescue (Festuca hallii) Grasslands in Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba. Thesis. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB. 188 pp.

Smreciu, E.A., Sinton, H.M., Walker, D.G. and Bietz, J.K. 2003. Establishing Native Plant Communities. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Edmonton, AB.

Stevenson, M.J., Ward, L.K. and Pywell, R.F. 1997. Re-creating Semi-natural Communities: Vacuum Harvesting and Hand Collection of Seed on Calcareous Grassland. Restoration Ecology 5: 66-76.

Stewart, N. 2009. Cultivating Our Roots: Growing Authentic Prairie Wildflowers and Grasses. Nora Stewart. Arcola, Saskatchewan.

Tannas, K. 2003. Common Plants of the Western Rangelands. Volume 1, Grasses and Grass-like Species. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Olds College Press.

Tannas, S. 2011. Mechanisms Regulating Poa pratensis L. and Festuca campestris Rybd. Within the Foothills Fescue Grasslands of Southern Alberta. Dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 362 pp.

Tesky, Julie L. 1992. Hordeum jubatum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2014, March 21].



Wilson, S.D. 2002. Prairies. In M.R. Perrow and A.J. Davy (eds.), Handbook of Ecological Restoration. Volume 2. Restoration in Practice. Cambridge University Press. New York. Pp. 443-465.

Woosaree, J. 2000. Market Assessment of the Native Plant Industry in Western Canada. Prepared for Alberta Environment and Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development by Alberta Research Council. Publication No: T/560. Vegreville, AB. 106 pp.

Woosaree, J. 2007a. Native Plant Species for Revegetating Oil and Gas Disturbances in the Sandy Soils of the Parkland Ecoregion of Alberta: Final Report. Prepared for Alberta Research Council Inc. Vegreville, AB. 43 pp.

Woosaree, J. 2007b. Restoration of Rough Fescue Prairie on a Pipeline Right-of-Way in Bodo Hills. Alberta Research Council, Vegreville, AB.

Woosaree, J. and James, B. 2004a. Development of Native Species Adapted to the Sandy Soils of the Parkland Ecoregion of Alberta. Alberta Research Council. Vegreville, AB.

Woosaree, J. and James, B. 2004b. Revegetation of Wellsites Disturbances on Fescue Prairie in East-central Alberta. Society for Ecological Restoration. Victoria, BC.

Woosaree, J. and James, B. 2006. Native Plant Species for Revegetating Oil and Gas Disturbances in the Sandy Soils of the Parkland Ecoregion of Alberta. Alberta Research Council Inc. Vegreville, AB. 53 pp.


July 2014 FINAL Appendix A: Page A-53

Appendix A Express Pipeline Northern Fescue NSR Field Studies

Express Pipeline – Succession Results for a Native Seed Mix used in the Northern Fescue Natural Subregion

Background Express Pipeline, owned and operated by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc., is a 24 inch (610 mm) crude oil pipeline that extends from Kinder Morgan’s tank farm near Hardisty, Alberta, south 434 kilometres to cross the United States border at Wildhorse, Alberta. The permanent right-of-way (RoW) is 20m wide and an additional 10m of temporary workspace was required for construction.

Portions of the Express RoW cross native prairie in the Central Parkland, Northern Fescue, Mixedgrass and Dry Mixedgrass NSRs. The long-term impact of pipeline construction and reclamation on native prairie ecosystems was an issue identified by stakeholders early in the planning process in 1994. Express Pipeline’s regulatory commitment was to reclaim the RoW in native prairie areas with the goal of establishing a positive successional trend towards the native plant community present prior to construction. This was an early opportunity to demonstrate minimum disturbance practices in the Grassland Natural Region. To pursue this goal, native seed mixes were developed, specialized seeding equipment was used, and erosion control procedures were implemented. Revegetation trials such as natural recovery were implemented to test the response of unconventional revegetation techniques.

A five year post-construction monitoring program was conducted between 1997 and 2001. Monitoring sites included; a diversity of soil types and native rangeland plant communities, construction practices, areas where spoil was stored directly on prairie vegetation, areas where construction vehicles were driven on the grass, and areas where disturbed soils were seeded or left to recover naturally. Additional monitoring in 2010, 14 years after construction, built on monitoring results collected in the initial five years.

The Express Pipeline Long-term Revegetation Monitoring Project (Express) provided industry and the Government of Alberta regulatory agencies with much needed data on the long-term revegetation success of reclamation techniques used on native prairie. To obtain a pdf version of the entire document or an abridged edition highlighting the key learnings of the study, visit the Foothills Restoration Forum website at http://www.foothillsrestorationforum.ca.

This section provides a summary of the findings associated with the assessment of reclamation techniques implemented on Express in the Northern Fescue NSR.

http://www.foothillsrestorationforum.ca/



Revegetation Treatment – Site 4 One monitoring site was established on the Express Pipeline in the Northern Fescue NSR in the Castor Plain Ecodistrict on SW26-34-9-W4M. The site is a Blowout ecological range site, described as an upland plain with Solonetzic Blowouts and Loamy higher ground. The RoW was blade width stripped, creating a topsoil disturbance about 8m wide. The soils/terrain are HKR(5)/3 Sol (a Dark Brown Solodized Solonetz) and the site was cleaned up and seeded in fall of 1996. The seed mix used for the plains rough fescue site was composed of both native cultivars and wild harvested species. The mix included pioneer and long lived species and species designed to provide cover and structure. Seed mix composition and the rate of application (12 kg/ha) was designed to allow infill and natural succession to occur. Components of the seed mix, “Rough Fescue - Mixedgrass Transition Prairie (Express Seed Mix 2)” are presented in Table A-1.

Table A-1 Rough Fescue - Mixedgrass Transition Prairie (Express Seed Mix 2)

Species Seeds/g PLS Est% PLS/m2 Plt/m2 kg/ha %/wt Total kg Streambank wheat grass 344 92 25 60 15 1.9 16.3 664

Northern wheat grass 345 92 25 24 6 0.8 6.5 265

Western wheat grass 242 92 25 24 6 1.1 9.3 377

Slender wheat grass Revenue 353 83 25 20 5 0.7 5.9 239

Slender wheat grass Adanac 353 86 25 28 7 0.9 7.9 323

Green needle grass Blight 398 88 10 43 4 1.2 10.4 425

Indian rice grass 518 86 10 50 5 1.1 9.7 393

June grass Gillespie 3300 84 10 71 7 0.3 2.2 89

Plains rough fescue Roes 386 77 10 25 3 0.8 7.3 296

Rough fescue Petherbridge 386 77 10 85 8 2.9 24.6 1000

Totals 429 66 12 100 4,069

A.1 Native Seed Mix Performance The performance of each species in the seed mix in terms of cover was tracked over time and compared to undisturbed native plant community on the adjacent control. Figure A-1 illustrates the cover each year of the dominant cultivars in the seed mix (Table A-1). Indian rice grass did not establish on this Blowout range site. No distinction is made between different cultivars of the same species, between streambank and northern wheat grass and between the two wild harvested rough fescue seed lots. It is also not possible to determine what percentage of establishment is from the existing seed or propagule bank in the vicinity.

Breaking up of the hard pan layer on a blowout range site during topsoil stripping and replacement will also affect species response, which can be more vigorous when compared to plant growth on the undisturbed control area.



Figure A-1 Expression of Dominant Seeded Grass Cultivars over Time for Express Site 4

Cultivars • The two slender wheat grass cultivars, Revenue and Adanac, behaved as transition species,

establishing in the early years and providing initial cover to stabilize soils, build litter and shelter other seedlings. Both cultivars have disappeared from the plant community by the fifth year, which was a drought year.

• Northern wheat grass and streambank wheat grass provided consistent cover during the first five years, including the drought year, and at year 14 provided cover values 1.5 times the controls. The seeded cultivars are more robust and taller than their natural counterparts.

• Western wheat grass provided early cover, but not during the drought year. It was present at 2.5 times the natural cover at year 14.

• Green needle grass is not present in the native rangeland control. The seeded cultivar slowly increased cover during the years, and was the dominant species (at 17% cover) on the site during the drought year of 2001, along with pasture sage (at 31% cover). It may out-compete other species for scarce water resources during drought events. It was persisting as an introduction to the plant community at 4% cover after 14 years. This grass cultivar is significantly taller and more robust than the surrounding native vegetation, creating persistent taller structure and differences in composition in the successional plant community.

• After 14 years, persistent cultivars which are still expanding or maintaining relative cover beyond levels on the controls may be influencing the trajectory of plant community succession.



Figure A-2 Expression of Wild Harvested Seed and Infill over Time for Express Site 4

Wild Harvested Seed and Infill of Graminoids • Establishment of wild harvested rough fescue from two sources (plains rough fescue Roes from

the Hand Hills and likely Foothills rough fescue Petherbridge from the Milk River Ridge) was very slow initially, but the average cover has increased. Fourteen years after seeding, average cover values of rough fescue on the seeded RoW are equivalent to cover values on the controls.

• Wild harvested June grass Gillespie performed well, reaching average cover values close to those of the controls by the third year. It performed comparatively better than the June grass cultivar used in the Dry Mixedgrass seed mix (Kestrel Research Inc. and Gramineae Services Ltd. 2011). By year 14 it is present at triple the cover on the control site, at 7% cover vs. 3%. This may be an expression of increased soil fertility due to the breaking up of the hard pan layer.

• Western porcupine grass, a characteristic species in the Northern Fescue NSR, has re-established naturally by infill. Cover has increased dramatically over time to near natural cover levels by year 14. Timely replacement of topsoil in the same growing season it was disturbed will benefit the natural re-establishment of this species (Kestrel Research Inc. and Gramineae Services Ltd. 2011).

• Sun-loving sedge, low sedge and blunt sedge are the dominant sedges at this site. They increase in cover as grazing pressure increases and were the dominant species group prior to construction when the pasture was heavily grazed. They can form an important lower structural layer and provide resilience to erosion and climate events. They have re-established naturally through seed or root propagules. They represented about 50% of the cover values found naturally.



A.2 Assessing Plant Community Succession on Disturbed Topsoil To assess whether succession towards the pre-disturbance native plant community is occurring, a time series of plant community observations were analysed. Figure A-3 illustrates the native and non-native functional groups and species cover present on Site 4 in each monitoring year.

Figure A-3 Species Prominence over Time for Native and Non-native Functional Groups Represented in the Site 4 Seed Mix

Sun-loving sedge 64.4 Slender wheat grass 69.7 Spear-leaved goosefoot 41.3 Pasture sagewort 27.3 Pasture sagewort 43.5 Pasture sagewort 16.4 Western porcupine grass 19.5

Western porcupine grass 9 Pasture sagewort 12.1 Pasture sagewort 20.7 Spear-leaved goosefoot 17.9 Green needle grass 24 Western porcupine grass 15.2 Blunt sedge 13.0

June grass 5.4 Western wheat grass 4.2 Slender wheat grass 19.5 Flixweed 16.5 Plains rough fescue 7.1 Northern wheat grass 7.1 Buckbrush 7.8

Plains rough fescue 3.4 Plains rough fescue 3.5 Stinkweed 5.5 Western wheat grass 10.5 June grass 11.9 June grass 7.1 Plains rough fescue 6.5

Purple milk vetch 3.3 Dock species 1.9 Northern wheat grass 3.5 Slender wheat grass 6.8 Indian rice grass 8.4 Plains rough fescue 6.3 Prairie sagewort 5.5

Prairie crocus 2.3 Green needle grass 1.8 Summer-cypress 2.1 Streambank wheatgrass 4.1 Crested wheatgrass 1.1 Western wheat grass 5.4 Pasture sagewort 4.2

Blunt sedge 2.3 Northern wheat grass 1.1 Blunt sedge 1.5 Green needle grass 4Northern wheatgrass

2.4 Low sedge 5.0 Northern wheat grass 4.1

Northern wheat grass 1.2 Sun-loving sedge 1.1 June grass 1.5 Western porcupine grass 3.4 Sun-loving sedge 0.9 Green needle grass 4.2 Low sedge 3.6

Western wheat grass 0.6 Goosefoot species 1.1 Plains rough fescue 1.2 June grass 2.2 unknown forb 0.7 Salt grass 2.5 Golden bean 2.9

Wire rush 0.6 Gumweed 1.1 Common yarrow 1 Sun-loving sedge 2.1 Crested wheatgrass 1.3 Western wheat grass 2.2

Common yarrow 0.5 June grass 1.1 Salt grass 0.7 Crested wheatgrass 1.2 Smooth brome 0.7 Slender wheat grass 1.9

Pasture sagewort 0.3 Snowberry 1.1 Western wheat grass 0.3 Blunt sedge 0.8 Low goldenrod 0.4 Prairie crocus 1.7

Blue grama 0.1 Wild tomato 0.2 Lamb's-quarters 0.3 Northern wheat grass 0.5 Blunt sedge 0.3 June grass 1.5

Northern bedstraw 0.1 Creeping white prairie aster 0.2 Salt grass 0.5 Common yarrow 0.2 Common yarrow 1.0

Alkali bluegrass 0.1 Low goldenrod 0.2 Plains rough fescue 0.5 Owl clover 0.9

Buckbrush 0.1 Needle-and-thread 0.2 Summer-cypress 0.5 ANTEAPR 0.8

Golden bean 0.1 Green needle grass 0.2 Dock species 0.5 Wire rush 0.8

Flixweed 0.1 Stinkweed 0.2 Mouse-ear chickweed 0.6

Western porcupine grass 0.1 Smooth brome 0.1 Sun-loving sedge 0.5

Alfalfa 0.01 Common knotweed 0.1 Northern bedstraw 0.5

Native Perennial Plant Common knotweed 0.01 Lamb's-quarters 0.01 Northern fairy candelabra 0.3

Native Annual Plant Buckbrush 0.01 Purple milk vetch 0.2

Non-Native Annual Plant Low goldenrod 0.2

Non-Native Perennial Annual whitlow-grass 0.1

Express PL Native Seed Mix Mat Muhly 0.1

Species % Cover Species % Cover Species % Cover

Off RoW On RoW 1997 On RoW 1999On RoW 1998 On RoW 2001

103.1 (0)

Species % Cover Species % Cover Species % Cover Species % Cover

On RoW 2010 Control 2010

72.1 ( ) 80.4 ( )79.0 (1.0)Total Cover 33.0 (53.4) 18.1 (0) 53.8 (0)



Pre-Disturbance: The pre-disturbance plant community is composed entirely of perennial native species. Some of these species are represented in the seed mix, represented by the lighter green colour on the chart.

Year 1: Seeded species, a few other native perennials and annual native and non-native species establish in year one for a total of 18% cover. Slender wheat grass is the most prominent species.

Years 2-3: In the following two years the diversity and cover of perennial native species increases, as does the cover and diversity of non-native annual plants and the cover of native annual plants.

Year 5: Annual non-native plants disappear from the stand by year five but two perennial invasive species appear, awnless brome and crested wheat grass.

Year 14: The perennial invasive species awnless brome and crested wheat grass persist at low prominence values after 14 years recovery. They were not recorded in the undisturbed control plot although they are present in patches in this pasture. The site is now dominated by native perennial grasses, western porcupine grass, which established by natural infill, as well as three seeded species, Northern wheat grass, June grass and plains rough fescue.

Figure A-4 compares the cover of the dominant species on Site 4 after 14 years recovery. Green needle grass is a new species to the site. Pasture sage, a disturbance forb, has much higher cover, as is typical of recovering topsoil disturbance. The other five graminoid species that characterize Blowout range sites in the Northern Fescue NSR are all present and providing somewhat comparable cover, evidence of positive succession towards the pre-disturbance plant community over time.



Range Health Management of the pasture has changed over the 14 years and range health has improved considerably. The undisturbed grassland health has changed from unhealthy to healthy over time. After 14 years recovery, the seeded disturbance was described as a mid-seral plant community ranked “Healthy with problems” with a health score of 72%. The surrounding pasture was ungrazed for several years. The cover of plains rough fescue and western porcupine grass is increasing and the dominance of sedges is decreasing. The undisturbed control is described as a mid-seral plant community, NFA11 – Sedge – Plains Rough Fescue, and ranked “Healthy” with a health score of 100%.

Figure A-4 Dominant Species After 14 Years Recovery Compared to the Undisturbed Control

A.3 Recovery of Forbs The low seeding rate (for the time) was designed to encourage infill from the surrounding area to increase diversity. Annual forbs (including four non-native and one native species) provided increasing cover up to 30% by year three after disturbance (Figures A-5 and A-6). They were not evident after that except in trace quantities on the control. Pasture sage cover increased five-fold by year five and after 14 years it is still present at three times the undisturbed cover values. The cover of perennial forbs has not re-established after 14 years on the disturbance (1% cover) compared to the undisturbed grassland (14.5% cover) (Figure A-5). There were 11 perennial forb species recorded on the control and only two other than pasture sage on the disturbance after 14 years recovery.



Figure A-5 Average Percent Cover of Forbs on the Recovering Disturbance Over Time

Figure A-6 Number of Forbs on the Recovering Disturbance Over Time


July 2014 FINAL Appendix B: Page B-61

Appendix B Northern Fescue Natural Subregion 2013 Field Studies

B.1 Recovery of Adjacent Large Diameter Pipelines after Topsoil Stripping

Data was collected in the Northern Fescue NSR in 2012 by Alta Rangeland Services Ltd. on a three year old large diameter pipeline right-of-way (RoW) and an adjacent control area of undisturbed native grassland. This pipeline paralleled other older large diamter RoWs. A number of parallel sites on a 22 year old and a 55 year old large diameter pipeline were inventoried in 2013 to assess recovery of adjacent sites. Where necessary to reflect range site conditions, an additional control site was added in 2013 for comparison.

B.1.1 Methods Summary Revegetation monitoring was conducted using standardized ESRD range monitoring methods summarized in report Sections 4.1 and 4.2. Monitoring sites are ordered by legal land description along the pipeline downstream from north to south. Information on the revegetation strategy and data 2012 monitoring data were provided by the pipeline company. Ecological range site has been correlated with soils mapping, on site observation and the appropriate Range Plant Community Guide.

B.1.2 Monitoring Results Little information is available on the reclamation treatment of the disturbed topsoil for the 55 year old and 22 year old large diamter pipelines built in 1957 and 1991 respectively. Based on the prominence of long-lived native perennials not readily produced for the reclamation industry on the older sites, it appears that in many areas the disturbance was left to revegetate naturally. Needle-and-thread and western porcupine grass are desirable infill native grasses as indicators of recovery, and the latter is a common component of native plant communities in the Northern Fescue NSR. These lines were built at a time when there was less disturbance on the landscape and natural recovery had some success.

Older seed mixes from the 1980s and 1990s with high wheat grass concentrations and composed in part of non-native “compatible species” such as hard fescue, sheep fescue, meadow brome, intermediate wheat grass and tall wheat grass, have created permanent changes in plant communities. Compatible seeded species were part of seed mixes appropriate to the time period (prior to 2010) or as outlined in historical agreements with the Land Manager. These species could be comprised of agronomics that were suitable for grazing purposes and native species but not be native to the subregion.

Many sites with invasive species establishment from seed mix components or common contaminants like Quackgrass and awnless brome are now trending-to-modified species composition.

If older RoWs successfully revegetate to native cover they pose less risk to newer adjacent disturbances. Adjacent reclaimed vegetation composition can affect infill species composition on more recent large diameter pipeline RoWs. However, larger differences appear to be due to treatments rather than infill. The most invasive species infilling on newer disturbances from older disturbances are awnless brome and Kentucky bluegrass.

The three year old large diameter pipeline RoW has on most sites a predictable early successional plant community dominated by seeded species, Green Needle Grass - Slender Wheat Grass – Northern wheat grass.



Site 13 Monitoring Location and Site Characteristics

Site # 1/4 Sec. Twp Rge Mer. Eco-district Ecological Range Site Soil Series 13 SE 8 29 4 4 BEN Lo HND

This is a Loamy range site in the Benton Upland, an island of Northern Fescue in the Oyen area surrounded by the Dry Mixedgrass Oyen Plain Ecodistrict. Vegetation on the 3 year old site is an early seral grassland community dominated by seeded grass species and infill grasses and forbs. Western porcupine grass, a desirable infill species, was also present at 6% cover.

One plains rough fescue plug was observed in the frames. It provided 0.1% relative cover while plains rough fescue from seed provided 0.3% cover.

Topsoil is elevated over the trench on the older (55 years old) large diameter pipeline RoW. Species composition includes long-lived native infill perennials. However, native graminoid composition differs from the control and is composed of species adapted to drier conditions. Forbs provide about 5% cover on the 55 year old RoW and 15% cover on the control. Range health is good and the older RoW is likely not negatively influencing recovery of the younger site.

Table B.1-1 Recovery of Adjacent Disturbances at Site 13

Monitoring Site 13

Treatment Years of

Recovery Range Health Seral Stage Plant Community

Control 0 Healthy w/ Problems (60%)

Early to mid-seral

NFA8: Sedge - Plains rough fescue - Western Porcupine Grass

Seed Mix A1, Rough fescue plugs, site fenced

3 Healthy w/ Problems (52%)

Early to mid-seral

Green Needle Grass - Slender Wheat Grass – Northern wheat grass

55 Year Old Large Diameter Pipeline; likely natural recovery

55 Healthy w/ Problems (58%) Mid-seral Western Wheat Grass - Sedge -

Needle-and-thread

Seed Mix A1

31% Rough Fescue

26% Awned Wheat Grass

27% Green Needle Grass

11% Northern Wheat Grass

5% June Grass




Site # 1/4 Sec. Twp Rge Mer. Eco-district Ecological Range Site Soil Series 26 SE 31 32 4 4 NEU BlO HKR

This is a Blowout range site in the Neutral Hills. Vegetation on the 3 year old site is a mid-seral grassland community dominated by seeded grass species. Awned wheat grass is a subspecies of slender wheat grass and was recorded in the monitoring as slender wheat grass. The site has a high degree of weed infestation with 6% sow thistle and 4% Canada thistle present, despite the healthy range associated with the undisturbed grassland. Plains rough fescue plants are present at 0.5% cover.

Species composition on the older (55 years old) large diameter pipeline RoW includes long-lived native grasses. Although native, graminoid composition differs from the control and plains rough fescue is absent. Forbs provide about 10% cover on the 55 year old RoW and 8% cover on the control.


Monitoring Site 26

Treatment Years of Recovery Range Health Seral Stage Plant Community

Control 0 Healthy (75%) Late seral to reference

NFA10 Plains Rough Fescue - Sedge

Seed Mix A1, Rough fescue plugs, fenced 3 Unhealthy

(44%) Mid-seral Green Needle Grass - Slender Wheat Grass – Foxtail barley


55 Healthy with problems (72%) Mid-seral

Western Wheat Grass - Plains Reed Grass - Northern Wheat Grass

Seed Mix A1

31% Rough Fescue




5% June Grass




Site # 1/4 Sec. Twp Rge Mer. Eco-district Ecological Range Site Soil Series 27 NE 31 32 4 4 NEU Ov/Lo HND/LFE

This site is an Overflow to Loamy range site in the Neutral Hills. The 3 year old large diameter pipeline control and RoW are situated on a Loamy site. The control is a reference grassland community with a cover of 5% snowberry, 20% plains rough fescue and 13% western porcupine grass. The 3 year old RoW is a mid-seral community dominated by seeded grass species and the native infill pasture sage at 11% cover.

The 55 year old large diameter pipeline and 2013 control are situated on an Overflow site. The 2013 control is a degraded NFC4 Snowberry / Plains rough fescue – Sedge mid-seral community. Plains rough fescue is significantly reduced due to encroachment of shrubs and Kentucky bluegrass. Kentucky bluegrass is present on the 2013 control at 9.5%. On the RoW, approximately 53% of the relative cover is non-native grasses and weedy forbs. The reclaiming plant community on the 55 year old disturbance is trending-to-modified with a cover of shrubs, orchard grass and invasive introduced Quackgrass, a common contaminant of seed mixes in the past.


Monitoring Site 27

Treatment Years of Recovery Range Health Seral

Stage Plant Community

3 Year Old Large Diamter Pipeline Control 0 Healthy (75%) Reference NFA1 Plains Rough Fescue -

Western Porcupine Grass

Seed Mix A1, Rough fescue plugs, site is fenced

3 Unhealthy (47%) Mid-seral Green Needle Grass - Slender Wheat Grass – Northern wheat grass

2013 Control 0 Healthy w/ Problems (60%) Mid-seral

Snowberry – Wild rose/Slender wheat grass – Kentucky bluegrass – Western porcupine grass




Snowberry / Quackgrass – Orchard grass

Seed Mix A1

31% Rough Fescue




5% June Grass




Site # 1/4 Sec. Twp Rge Mer. Eco-district Ecological Range Site Soil Series 30 NW 18 33 4 4 NEU Lo HND

This is a Loamy range site in the Neutral Hills. Vegetation on the 3 year old site is a mid-seral grassland community dominated by seeded grass species. Plains rough fescue is present at 3.8% cover from both plugs and seed and western porcupine grass is present at 1.2% cover, indicating emergence of desirable long-lived perennial grasses. Forbs are present at 11% cover on both the RoW and the control, with pasture sage representing 5% cover in both instances. There are several perennial invasive species present at trace cover levels on the RoW, including awnless brome, sweet clover and Canada thistle, but no Kentucky bluegrass.

The 55 year old large diameter pipeline RoW is a trending-to-modified shrubland community due to the presence of Kentucky bluegrass at 14% cover. Plains rough fescue is not present and western porcupine grass has a low cover of only 3.3%.


Monitoring Site 30

Treatment Years of

Recovery Range Health

Seral Stage Plant Community


Early to mid-seral NFA9: Blue Grama - Sedge

Seed Mix A2 revised, Rough fescue plugs, site is not fenced and has been grazed; mid

3 Healthy with Problems (66%)

Mid-seral Slender Wheat Grass - Northern Wheat Grass




Snowberry / Kentucky bluegrass - Green Needle Grass

Seed Mix A2

10.5% Rough Fescue


30.5% Green Needle Grass


10.5% Western Wheat Grass

4% Western Porcupine Grass

4.5% June Grass




Site # 1/4 Sec. Twp Rge Mer. Eco-district Ecological Range Site Soil Series 31 SW 19 33 4 4 NEU Sy DCY

This is a Sandy range site in the Neutral Hills. Vegetation on the 3 year old site is an early to mid-seral grassland community dominated by seeded grass species and infill pasture sagewort. Presence of plains rough fescue at 4% cover was noted from both plugs and seed. The disturbance forb pasture sage is present at 20% cover, but other forbs make up less than 3% cover.

Plains rough fescue is not present on the control site for the 55 year old pipeline RoW. The revegetation on RoW supports a cover of native grasses from infill, including needle-and-thread and blue grama. A 17% cover of forbs (including 9% pasture sage) is present on the 55 year old large diameter pipeline RoW versus 9% cover on the control site.


Monitoring Site 31 Treatment Years of Recovery

Range Health

Seral Stage Plant Community

3 Year Old Large Diamter Pipeline Control 0 Unhealthy

(47%) Early to mid-seral

Western porcupine grass - Blue Grama Grass – Western wheat grass - Sedge (NFA9)

Seed Mix A2 revised, Rough fescue plugs, site is fenced, gate is open, site has been grazed


Early to mid-seral

Slender Wheat Grass - Green Needle Grass – Northern Wheat Grass

2013 Control 0 Healthy w/ Problems (60%)

Early to mid-seral

Blue Grama – Western porcupine grass – Needle-and-thread (NFA9)

55 Year Old Large Diamter Pipeline; likely natural recovery 55 Unhealthy

(47%) Mid-seral Northern Wheat Grass - Blue Grama - Needle-and-thread

Seed Mix A2

10.5% Rough Fescue






4.5% June Grass




Site # 1/4 Sec. Twp Rge Mer. Eco-district Ecological Range Site Soil Series 33 NE 3 35 5 4 NEU Lo HND

This is a Loamy range site in the Neutral Hills. Vegetation on the 3 year old site is an early seral grassland community dominated by colonizing and early successional seeded species. Presence of plains rough fescue at 4% cover was noted from both plugs and seed. The disturbance forb pasture sage is present at 5% cover and Canada thistle is present at 3% cover. There is a 4% cover of forbs on the control, including 2% cover of pasture sage.

The prominence of long-lived native perennials not readily produced for the reclamation industry on the 55 year old site suggest that natural recovery was the revegetation strategy. Needle-and-thread and western porcupine grass are desirable infill native grasses as indicators of recovery, and the latter is a common component of native plant communities in the Northern Fescue NSR.


Monitoring Site 33

Treatment Years of



Early to mid-seral

NFA9 Blue Grama Grass - Sedge

Seed Mix A1, Rough fescue plugs, site is fenced, gate open to grazing

3 Healthy w/ Problems (60%) Early seral Slender Wheat Grass -

Green Needle Grass


55 Healthy w/ Problems (60%) Mid-seral

Needle-and-thread - Northern Wheat Grass - Western Porcupine Grass

Seed Mix A1

31% Rough Fescue




5% June Grass




Site # 1/4 Sec. Twp Rge Mer. Eco-district Ecological Range Site Soil Series 36 NW 15 35 5 4 NEU Sy MET

This is a Sandy range site in the Neutral Hills. Vegetation on the 3 year old site is an early seral grassland community dominated by seeded grass species and to a lesser extent, Kentucky bluegrass at 3% cover. Kentucky bluegrass is possibly infilling from the adjacent older line, where it was recorded at 16% cover. It is not present on the associated 3 year old large diameter pipeline control site. Forbs include pasture sage, and the invasive species Canada thistle and sow thistle at 3% and 2% cover, respectively.

Natural recovery was likely the reclamation strategy on the 55 year old pipeline RoW. The recovering plant community is a trending-to-modified shrubland type dominated by snowberry and silverberry. Kentucky bluegrass is present at 16% but is only present at 0.2% cover on the 2013 control. Plains rough fescue is present on the RoW at 1.5% cover. Four species of native forbs are present at 13% cover.


Monitoring Site 36

Treatment Years of Recovery Range Health Seral Stage Plant Community

3 Year Old Large Diameter Pipeline Control


Early to mid-seral

NFA8 Sedge - Plains Rough Fescue - Western Porcupine Grass


3 Healthy w/ Problems (60%) Early seral

Slender Wheat Grass - Green Needle Grass – Northern Wheat Grass

2013 Control 0 Healthy (100%) Reference Northern Snowberry - Wolf willow / Plains rough fescue (conditional)




Snowberry - Wolf willow / Northern wheat grass - Kentucky Bluegrass

Seed Mix A1

31% Rough Fescue




5% June Grass




Site # 1/4 Sec. Twp Rge Mer. Eco-district Ecological Range Site Soil Series 45 SW 27 36 6 4 NEU GR SCD

This monitoring location is on a Gravel range site in the Neutral Hills. Vegetation on the 3 year old RoW site is an early seral grassland community dominated by seeded grass species including plains rough fescue.

The 51 year old large diameter pipeline RoW is possibly a natural recovery site. There are no non-native plants on the RoW and needle-and-thread is dominant at 21% cover. Perennial native forbs make up 8% of the cover, including 5% cover of pasture sage.

Western porcupine grass is present on both the 3 year old large diameter pipeline RoW and 2013 control sites at 8% and 10% cover, respectively. It is present on the 3 year old large diameter pipeline RoW from infill sources at 2.4% cover, but only 0.8% cover on the 51 year old pipeline RoW.

Plains rough fescue is absent from the controls and from the 51 year old RoW but is present on the 3 year old RoW at 4% cover from plugs and seed.


Monitoring Site 45

Treatment Years of



0 Unhealthy (47%) Early seral Needle-and-thread - Northern Wheat Grass - Western Porcupine Grass


3 Unhealthy (39%) Early seral Slender Wheat Grass - Northern Wheat Grass – Green Needle Grass

2013 Control 0 Healthy w/ Problems (72%) Mid-seral Western Porcupine Grass –

Northern Wheat Grass


51 Healthy w/ Problems (87%) Mid-seral Needle-and-thread – Northern

Wheat Grass – Sedge

Seed Mix A1

31% Rough Fescue




5% June Grass




Site # 1/4 Sec. Twp Rge Mer. Eco-district Ecological Range Site Soil Series 46 NW 11 37 7 4 NEU Lo OVE

This is a Loamy range site in the Neutral Hills. Vegetation on the 3 year old RoW site is an early seral grassland community dominated by seeded grass species and infill forbs dominated by pasture and prairie sagewort.

There is a 3% cover of quackgrass on the 3 year old RoW, but it is not present on the other monitoring locations at site 46. The RoW also supports trace cover of awnless brome, a seed mix contaminant not present on other areas within site 46.

Plains rough fescue is present on the control at 9.6% cover, on the 3 year old RoW at 0.1% cover and on the 51 year old RoW at 1.9% cover. The 51 year old large diameter pipeline is possibly a natural recovery site.


Monitoring Site 46

Treatment Years of




Early to mid-seral

NFA8: Sedge - Plains Rough Fescue - Western Porcupine Grass

Seed Mix A2 revised, Rough fescue plugs, fenced

3 Healthy w/ Problems (60%) Early seral Slender Wheat Grass - Green

Needle Grass – Foxtail Barley


51 Healthy w/ Problems (60%) Mid-seral

Green Needle Grass - Western Wheat Grass - Western Porcupine Grass

Seed Mix A2

10.5% Rough Fescue






4.5% June Grass




Site # 1/4 Sec. Twp Rge Mer. Eco-district Ecological Range Site Soil Series 49 NW 21 37 7 4 NEU Lo OVE

This monitoring location is on a Loamy range site in the Neutral Hills. The control site is a reference plant community in healthy condition.

Vegetation on the 3 year old RoW site is dominated by seeded native grasses but is a trending-to-modified grassland community due to invasion of awnless brome at 11% cover. Plains rough fescue is present at 1% cover and western porcupine grass is present at 2% cover.

The 22 year old large diameter pipeline RoW has likely been reseeded to tame forages dominated by meadow brome and alfalfa, and to a lesser extent intermediate wheat grass and sheep fescue. The relative cover of the non-native grasses is 92%; therefore it was rated as a tame pasture site.


Monitoring Site 49

Treatment Years of


Control 0 Healthy (100%) Reference NFA1: Plains Rough Fescue

- Western Porcupine Grass

Seed Mix A1 revised, Rough fescue plugs, fenced, but grazed

3 Unhealthy (48%)


Slender Wheat Grass - Green Needle Grass – Awnless Brome

22 Year Old Large Diameter Pipeline; seed mix

22 Healthy Tame (100%)

Modified Meadow Brome - Alfalfa

Seed Mix A1

31% Rough Fescue




5% June Grass

22 Year Old Pipeline Seed Mix

15% Northern Wheat Grass Elbee

35% Streambank Wheat Grass Sodar

10% Nuttall's Alkali Grass

5% Indian Rice Grass

20% Hard Fescue Durar

15% Tall wheat grass Orbit




Site # 1/4 Sec. Twp Rge Mer. Eco-district Ecological Range Site Soil Series 51 SE 31 37 7 4 NEU Sy MET

This monitoring location is on a Sandy range site in the Neutral Hills. The 3 year old large diameter pipeline control site is a mid-seral plant community and the 2013 control is a reference community, both in healthy condition.

However, the 3 year old RoW site has an 8% cover of awnless brome, which was not present on any of the other plots so it may be a seed mix contaminant.

The 22 year old seeded pipeline is dominated by non-native seeded species including the invasive sheep fescue, which may have replaced hard fescue in the seed mix or been reseeded along with meadow brome. These non-native species were considered to be compatible species at that time.


Monitoring Site 51

Treatment Years of Recovery

Range Health Seral Stage Plant Community

3 Year Old Large Diameter Pipeline Control 0 Healthy

(75%) Mid-seral NFA8 Sedge - Plains Rough Fescue - Western Porcupine Grass

Seed Mix A1, Rough fescue plugs, site is fenced but has been grazed

3 Unhealthy (48%)


Slender Wheat Grass - Green Needle Grass – Awned wheat grass

2013 Control 0 Healthy (100%) Reference

NFA7: Western Porcupine Grass - Plains Rough Fescue

22 Year Old Large Diameter Pipeline; seed mix 22 Unhealthy

(47%) Trending-to-modified

Sheep Fescue - Meadow Brome - Intermediate Wheat Grass

Seed Mix A1

31% Rough Fescue




5% June Grass







15% Tall Wheat Grass Orbit




Site # 1/4 Sec. Twp Rge Mer. Eco-district Ecological Range Site Soil Series 52 NW 29 37 7 4 NEU BlO CUR

This monitoring location is on a Blowout range site on Dark Brown Solodized Solonetz in the Neutral Hills. The 3 year old RoW disturbance is an early to mid-seral grassland community dominated by seeded grasses. Plains rough fescue is present from seed and plugs at 7% cover. Western porcupine grass is prominent on both controls but only present at 1.6% and 1.2% cover on the 3 year old RoW and the 22 year old RoW, respectively.

There is little evidence of the 22 year old large diameter pipeline seed mix on the disturbance with only sheep fescue present at 2.5% cover and contamination and / or invasion of meadow brome present at 0.4% cover. Overall, the site is trending-to-modified due to the invasion of Kentucky bluegrass at 31% cover.


Monitoring Site 52

Treatment Years of


3 Year Old Large Diameter Pipeline Control 0 Healthy (87%) Mid-seral

Sedge - Western Porcupine Grass – Northern Wheat Grass (correlates to NFA11)

Seed Mix A2 revised, Rough fescue plugs, site is fenced, but has been grazed


Early to mid-seral

Slender Wheat Grass - Green Needle Grass – Plains Rough Fescue

2013 Control 0 Healthy (84%) Mid-seral Western porcupine grass – Sedge – Western wheat grass (correlates to NFA11)

22 Year Old Large Diameter Pipeline; seed mix 22 Unhealthy (47%) Trending-

to-modified

Kentucky Bluegrass - Sedge - Western Wheat Grass

Seed Mix A2

10.5% Rough Fescue






4.5% June Grass











Site # 1/4 Sec. Twp Rge Mer. Eco-district Ecological Range Site Soil Series 53 SE 9 37 7 4 NEU BlO CUR

This monitoring location is on a Blowout range site on Dark Brown Solodized Solonetz in the Neutral Hills.

Vegetation on the 3 year old RoW site is dominated by seeded native grasses but is a trending to a modified grassland community due to the presence for quackgrass and Kentucky bluegrass at 8% and 2.2% cover, respectively.

The 22 year old pipeline RoW is trending-to-modified with a 51% cover of hard fescue and an 11% cover of meadow brome. Although meadow brome is persistent, it is not known to be invasive in the Northern Fescue NSR so it may have been seeded included in a re-seeding mix at a later date. Quackgrass and Kentucky bluegrass were not recorded on the older RoW. The four forbs providing the most cover are recorded at 6% on the recovering disturbance and 10% on the control.


Monitoring Site 53

Treatment Years of



Late seral to reference

NFA10: Plains Rough Fescue - Sedge

Seed Mix A2 revised, Rough fescue plugs, fenced 3

Healthy w/ Problems (60%)


Slender Wheat Grass - Western Wheat Grass - Quackgrass

22 Year Old Large Diameter Pipeline; seed mix 22 Unhealthy

(20%) Trending-to-modified

Hard Fescue – Meadow Brome

Seed Mix A2

10.5% Rough Fescue






4.5% June Grass











Site # 1/4 Sec. Twp Rge Mer. Eco-district Ecological Range Site Soil Series 54 SE 6 38 7 4 NEU BlO HKR


Although the control site is a reference Plains Rough Fescue – Sedge plant community, both the 3 year old RoW and the 22 year old RoW disturbances are trending-to-modified plant communities due to the dominance of invasive non-native species.

Plains rough fescue is present at 24% cover on the control, at 0.2% cover on the 3 year old disturbance and at 2% cover on the 22 year old disturbance.


Monitoring Site 54

Treatment Years of Recovery

Range Health Seral Stage Plant Community

Control 0 Healthy (100%)

Late seral to reference

NFA10 Plains Rough Fescue - Sedge


3 Unhealthy (45%)


Slender Wheat Grass - Awnless Brome – Green Needle Grass


22 Unhealthy (32%)


Sheep Fescue - Meadow Brome - Western Wheat Grass

Seed Mix A1

31% Rough Fescue




5% June Grass











Site # 1/4 Sec. Twp Rge Mer. Eco-district Ecological Range Site Soil Series 55 NW 22 38 8 4 NEU BlO HKR


Vegetation on the 3 year old RoW site is a mid-seral grassland community dominated by seeded native wetland grass species. The fowl bluegrass and tufted hair grass have a low tolerance to salinity, whereas slough grass has a medium tolerance. It would appear that the topsoil and subsoil replacement improved drainage and / or reduced soil salinity compared to the control which is dominated by species adapted to hard pan and slightly saline soils.

The 22 year old pipeline RoW has recovered to the same plant community as recorded in the control.


Monitoring Site 55

Treatment Years of Recovery Range Health Seral

Stage Plant Community

Control 0 Unhealthy (47%) Early seral NFA12 Western wheat grass – June Grass

Seed Mix A3 3 Healthy w/ problems (56%) Mid-seral Fowl Bluegrass - Slough

Grass - Tufted Hair Grass


22 Unhealthy (38%) Early seral NFA12 Western Wheat Grass - June Grass

Seed Mix A3

20% Western Wheat Grass

20% Slender Wheat Grass

10% Alkali Bluegrass


10% Tufted Hair Grass

10% Slough Grass

10% Sweet Grass








10% Fowl Bluegrass



B.2 2013 Well Site Revegetation Monitoring Surveys

Sites Seeded to Mixes of Combined Agronomic and Native Plant Cultivars Older seed mixes from the 1990s with high wheat grass concentrations and composed in part of non-native “compatible species” such as hard fescue, sheep fescue, meadow brome, intermediate wheat grass and tall wheat grass have created permanent changes in plant communities. Compatible seeded species were part of seed mixes appropriate to the time period. Removing these species from a plant community by grazing has not shown good success. Species like sheep fescue and hard fescue green up earlier and can attract grazers to the disturbance, creating more pressure on the reclaiming site compared to the surrounding native plant community.

Table B.2-1 Wellsites Seeded to Mixes of Combined Agronomic and Native Plant Cultivars

Monitoring Site ID Treatment Years of


Seral Stage Plant Community GVI Eco-

district

APAC01C (11-8-37-7-W4) Control 0 Healthy

(75%) Reference

Plains rough fescue - Western porcupine grass - Sun-loving sedge

LO NEU

APAC01R (11-8-37-7-W4)

Full width strip; seeded; unfenced

19 Unhealthy (43%)


Hard fescue - Sheep Fescue - Western Porcupine Grass

LO NEU

APAC02C (9-29-36-5-W4) Control 0 Healthy

(87%) Reference

Plains rough fescue - Western porcupine grass - Sun-loving sedge

LO NEU

APAC02R (9-29-36-5-W4)

Full width strip; seeded; unfenced

20

Healthy w/

problems (60%)


Green Needle Grass - Plains Rough Fescue - Awnless Brome (7%) - Meadow Brome (7%)

LO NEU



Recovery of Complex Minimal Disturbance Wellsites Two wellsites owned by CNRL in the Neutral Hills on Sandy and Loamy range sites were inventoried. Monitoring transects were established on an undisturbed control area, a minimal disturbance area where topsoil was not stripped, and stripped, seeded areas (Table B.2-2). Both wellsites (CNRL01 and CNRL02) show much better restoration success on the minimal disturbance portion of the wellsites, where topsoil was not disturbed.

Exposed topsoil has been colonized by invasive sweet clover on site CNRL01R2, possibly through contaminants in introduced topsoil or from infill. Green needle grass and western wheat grass are native species capable of persisting with invasive species and are also dominant species in the plant community. However, the site is trending towards a modified plant community.

On site CNRL03R2, use of an older seed mix with high wheat grass concentrations and composed in part of non-native “compatible species” such as hard fescue and intermediate wheat grass have created permanent changes in plant communities. Compatible seeded species were part of seed mixes appropriate to the time period (prior to 2010). The resulting seeded community is dissimilar to the control and trending-to-modified.

A third well on a Sand range site (CNRL02) was inventoried on the topsoil disturbance, which was seeded three times over four years (2000 – 2003), straw crimped for erosion control in 2001, and treated with herbicide to manage broadleaf weeds in 2003. With this intensive adaptive management, the plant community developing on the disturbance is similar to the undisturbed area.



Table B.2-2 Recovery of Complex Minimal Disturbance Wellsites Requiring Multiple Treatments

Monitoring Site ID Treatment Years of


Seral Stage Plant Community GVI

CNRL01C (7-1-32-2-W4) Control 0

Healthy w/

problems (72%)

Early seral

Western porcupine grass - Blunt Sedge - Northern wheat grass

Sy

CNRL01R2 (7-1-32-2-W4)

Stripped, topsoil added early

1990’s; seeded to native mix 2005

8

Healthy w/

problems (65%)

Trending-to-

modified

Sweet clover - Intermediate wheat

grass - Green needle grass - Western

wheat grass - Alfalfa

Sy

CNRL01R (7-1-32-2-W4)

Minimal disturbance;

Natural recovery 56

Healthy w/

problems (56%)

Mid-seral

Needle & thread - Prairie selaginella -

Northern wheat grass - Sedge

Sy

CNRL02C (15-34-31-2-

W4) Control 0

Healthy w/

problems (60%)

Early seral

Sand grass - Sun-loving sedge - Blunt sedge - June grass

Sa

CNRL02R (15-34-31-2-

W4)

Constructed Aug 1998; minimal disturbance; 4

disturbed areas seeded Aug 2000,

Oct 2002, June 2003; Straw crimp fall 2001; broadleaf

herbicide June 2003.

10

Healthy w/

problems (59%)

Early seral

Sand grass - Prairie selaginella - Low sedge - Northern

wheat grass

Sa

CNRL03C (1-1-32-2-W4) Control 0

Healthy w/

problems (72%)

Early seral

Western porcupine grass - Hooker's oat

grass Lo

CNRL03R1 (1-1-32-2-W4)

Minimal disturbance;

Natural recovery 11

Healthy w/

problems (52%)

Early seral

Low sedge - June grass - Plains Reed

Grass - Northern wheat grass -

Western Porcupine Grass – Needle-and-

thread

Lo

CNRL03R2 (1-1-32-2-W4)

Disturbed portion from hill cut;

seeded native wheat grass

cultivars plus hard fescue

10

Healthy w/

problems (55%)

Trending-to-

modified

Intermediate wheat grass - Crested

wheat grass Lo



Assessment of Wellsites on Special Areas and Public Lands Grazing Leases Monitoring surveys were conducted July 29th – Aug 2nd, 2013. Twenty-four sites were assessed (Table B.2-3). The great majority of reclaimed wellsites were not native plant communities. They were seeded to forages, within tame pastures, or invaded by agronomic grasses, particularly awnless brome and sheep fescue. Detailed transects were inventoried at two sites, where the surrounding native prairie was in good health. Information on reclamation details for each site was in most cases sparse or absent for older sites.

Table B.2-3 Assessment of Wellsites on Special Areas and Public Lands Grazing Leases

Site Id MSL Legal Land

Description ERS Disp Yr Comments Reclamation /

Revegetation Strategy

48 10687 14-14-28-18-4 LO/-- 2001 Sold in land sale, therefore private land now No information

86 10993 6-29-32-12-4 BIO 2002 Reclamatiion not native No information 130 10967 8-19-33-14-4 BIO 2002 Reclamatiion not native No information

41 12483 9-25-27-17-4 LO 2004

Minimum disturbance well in dense brome patch in native fescue grassland in Hand Hills; shrubs cut; no tie in or flow line; revegetated to awnless brome

No information

84 11542 13-25-27-17-4 TB/LO 2003 No wellsite was developed here; undisturbed Stipcur-Boutgra native grassland

No information

42 15827 16-31-28-15-4 LO 2006

Seeded to crested wheat grass; significant Melioff invasion; 40% of fenced wellsite is under water in wetland; new PL and access RoW seeded to Bromine in Stipcur native grassland in Hand Hills

No information

119 16284 12-23-33-10-4 -- 2007 Tame pasture No information 91 10053 15-16-10-33-11-4 BIO 2001 Tame hay pasture; active well No information

100 8243 8-16-34-9-4 Sa 1997 Seeded to bromine No information 118 14323 12-22-34-9-4 -- 2005 Tame pasture; Bromine; No information

101 7524 6-19-34-9-4 Sa 1995

Wellsite seeded to Bromine; trail natural recovery on Sa and low relief dunes; detailed transect sampling on access trail

No information

103 13119 14-16-28-18-4 LO 2004 Detailed transect sampling along flow line No information

131 16502 9-31-32-13-4 BIO 2007 Reclamatiion not native No information

85 10854 4-16-33-12-4 BIO 2001 No sign of disturbance; between 2 active wellsites on native prairie

No information

102 9-20-28-15-4 Lo 2007 Reclamatiion not native No information

69 9E+05 1-34-28-17-4 -- 1994 Farm lease; some native?, some cultivation No information



Site Id MSL Legal Land

Description ERS Disp Yr Comments Reclamation /

Revegetation Strategy

47 46017 2-6-29-17-4 LO/-- 2004

Very weedy, contaminated seed mix or soil (Agrorep, Phlepra, Melioff, Tragdub); appears seeded to Stipvir-Agropyron mix; Festhal tussocks on site are less prominent, rhizomatous species more prominent

Minimal disturbance wellsite in healthy Stipcur-Festhal grassland in Hand Hills; dry hole; no tie in or flow line; 3x4m disturbance at well head

97 11286 6-32-31-12-4 BlO 2002 Canola No information

147 16473 9-17-34-9-4 CS/-- after Apr

1994

Access seeded to awnless brome on older portion of access from west; newer access extension natural recovery; natural recovery - good regen of groundcover and shrubs/trees; broadcast seeded w/ native mix

Existing veg on the site was brush-mowed; site then broadcast seeded with a site specific native mix that included 30% Prairie Sandreed, 10% Needle & Thread, 10% Green Needle, 20% Western Wheat grass, 20% fowl bluegrass, and 10% June Grass

P4 9E+05 15-3-34-22-4 NONE 1994 NF NSR Reference community Festhal - Stipcur; wellsite is in a historic awnless brome stand

Seeded to a native wheat grass mix plus Festovi; Brome invasion into wellsite, forming the canopy layer along with Cirsarv, Festovi persistent, forming the mid-layer; native frob infill is primarily Solidago gigantea and Artelud in mid-layer; almost no sign of wheat grasses; both on and offsite ungrazed, bordering unfenced crop; Seed mix 6/26/1995; Agrodas 30%, Festovi 20%, Agrotra 10%, Agrorip 10%, Agrosmi 30%; no till drill; spread 75 straw bales

110 41995 7-25-35-10-4 -- 2004

Routine - 20110524; JL Natural recovery; Bromine invasion from pipeline; remediated site – Grassland

No information

P7 1E+06 1-11-37-22-4 NONE 1997

D&A wellsite; recontoured probably; native grassland should have been Stipcur - Festhal or Festhal - Stipcur

Reseeded to tame Festuca and Bromus biebersteinii; invaded by Cirsarv and Poaprat; salted and the whole pasture heavily grazed

140 16504 1-27-32-15-4 None 2007 Hay field No information 106 10987 16-29-31-13-4 BlO/No 2002 Tame forage; active gas well No information



Site 101 is an unimproved access trail to an 18 year old wellsite on a Sand range site in the Sullivan Plain Ecodistrict, which was allowed to revegetate naturally. Species composition on the recovering trail is very similar to the control plant community (Table B.2-4). The major differences are in the accumulation of litter and the moss/lichen layer, which are absent from the trail. There is 30% more vegetation growth on the trail compared to the control but this may be a grazing effect. There is also 8.5%more bare soil on the abandoned trail.

Table B.2-4 Natural Recovery of an Access Trail on a Sand Range Site

Sitecode

Percent Cover Range Health Plant Community

Litter Moss

& Lichen

Bare Soil

Total Green

Vegetation

SA101C 98.2 30.6 1.4 58.5 Healthy (100%)

Sun-loving sedge - June grass - Western porcupine grass

SA101R 0 0 9.9 89.5 Healthy w/ problems

(51%)

Sun-loving sedge - Western porcupine grass

A visual assessment of a minimal disturbance wellsite in an aspen/shrubland community on a Choppy Sand site showed excellent recovery. The site was not flat and choppy sand hill contours may have been recreated. As part of the reclamation process, existing vegetation on the site was brush-mowed. The site was then broadcast seeded with a site specific native mix that included 30% sand grass, 10% needle-and-thread, 10% green needle grass, 20% western wheat grass, 20% fowl bluegrass, and 10% June grass. Shrub growth has increased to 30% cover and aspen are present on site at 10% cover.


July 2014 FINAL Appendix C: Page C-83

Appendix C Cluster Analysis and Ordination of Plant Communities on Loamy and Blowout Range Sites in the Northern Fescue Natural Subregion

Cluster Analysis, Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling Ordination and Indicator Species Analysis for the Northern Fescue Loamy Ecological Range Site Ross Adams, Jane Lancaster and Varge Craig



C.1 Introduction A number of researchers who have conducted reclamation monitoring in the Northern Fescue Natural Subregion generously donated their inventory plot data collected over a number of years to this project. They include data from Mae Elsinger’s Master’s thesis at the University of Alberta, Peggy Desserud’s post-doctoral studies at the University of Calgary, Jay Woosaree’s studies with Alberta Innovates and from several oil and gas and pipeline companies’ projects. In addition, ESRD provided access to data in their Ecological Site Information System database (ESIS) to assist with describing the control plots data and making linkages to their Northern Fescue Range Plant Community Guide (Kupsch et al. 2012). Data collected during the summer of 2013 by the recovery strategies monitoring crew was also entered into the ESRD ESIS database.

C.2 Methods

Data Selection Data was acquired from several sources. Data collection methods were similar for all projects, following standard range inventory protocols for assessing vegetation cover and composition (ASRD 2007). All monitoring data originated from the Northern Fescue Natural Subregion. Sites where the undisturbed areas were in unhealthy range condition or trending to modifed non-native species cover were eliminated from the data set. Several range site types were included in the analysis including Loamy, Overflow, Sandy and Blowout sites with better soil development. These sites were judged to be of similar productivity for comparison. A cluster analysis indicated fairly tight clustering of undisturbed control sites across range site types, with no obvious outliers on a range site basis.

Due to the number of observers, slight differences in data collection protocols between projects and differences in taxonomic expertise between observers, the data set contains many single species entries. Single species entries in the combined data set (species scored once in one plot only) were removed from the analysis to reduce the bulk of the data and enhance the detection of relationships between plant communities and environmental factors (McCune and Grace 2002).

Disturbance data was collected primarily from areas where topsoil was disturbed and replaced during construction. Several data sets are also from minimal disturbance areas such as access roads and unstripped portions of wellsites. The entire data set includes data from large and small diameter pipelines, flow lines and wellsites and encompasses a variety of construction and reclamation methods and treatments. A control plot in adjacent undisturbed grassland was established for each plot on a disturbance for comparison purposes.

With a few exceptions, data from vegetation inventory forms (MF5 forms) was entered into the ESRD Ecological Site Information System (ESIS) vegetation database. Averages were calculated for the cover of each individual species, total vegetative cover, cover of litter, soil exposure, and the cover of moss and lichen on each site.



Cluster Analysis and Ordination Cluster analysis was performed using a distance matrix based on the average species cover for each site (R Core Team 2013). Undisturbed (control) sites (Section C.3) and disturbed sites (Section C.4) clustered separately. Ward's method of hierarchical clustering was used to group sites according to similarity in species composition and cover, and to identify outliers. Outliers were removed from further analyses. The clusters of undisturbed sites were compared to plant communities in ESRD's Northern Fescue Range Plant Community Guide using De-trended Correspondence Analysis (Section C.3). If the first axis eigenvalue was lower than 0.2, the cluster was considered to be a member of the plant community to which it was compared.

The clusters of undisturbed sites formed the basis of the disturbed site ordination (Section C.5). Figures produced using Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling Ordinations were in two or three dimensions, and the number of dimensions was chosen so as to provide a low stress solution. Since the species cover data was measured on the same scale for all sites, data was not relativized prior to ordination. Species cover data was the only data used in the ordination, total vegetative cover, cover of litter, and soil exposure data were excluded due to inconsistencies in data collection between projects.

Data Presentation For the following groupings, and throughout this report, the top six to eight species are presented to describe the community, based on high constancy, high cover or their value as indicator species in the plant community. The first one to three characteristic species are used to describe the group name according to the Shrub/Grass-Forb format used by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (e.g. Adams et al. 2013).

C.3 Results – Undisturbed Native Grassland Controls Clusters of control plots for each monitoring site were assessed to determine which range plant community they represent. With the assistance of ESRD to access their data, the control clusters were compared to the community data used to develop the publication, Range Plant Communities and Range Health Assessment Guidelines for the Northern Fescue Subregion of Alberta (Kupsch et al. 2012). This comparison will provide context to the ability of disturbances to recover in these plant communities.



Control Cluster 1 - NFA1. Plains Rough Fescue – Western Porcupine Grass Cluster 1 consists of 8 observations which correlate to the NFA1 reference grassland plant community on moist Loamy range sites in the Northern Fescue (Table C.3-1). Grazing pressure is light to moderate with plains rough fescue as the dominant species followed by western porcupine grass, and to a lesser extent, other graminoids, forbs and shrub species. The cluster appears to represent the mid to upper range of the NFA1 plant community ecological status. This plant community is at risk to invasion by Kentucky bluegrass and awnless brome under moderate to heavy grazing pressure due to the higher moisture regime associated with this range site. Aspen (Populus tremuloides) was recorded at four sites, confirming Kupsch et al. 2012 observations that the range site is at risk of shrub and forest encroachment, particularly on north facing and lower slope positions.

Soils are primarily an Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems and to a lesser extent Orthic Black Chernozems on inclined to hummocky landscapes. Soil exposure is generally less than 2% and moss and lichen will be present as ground cover (Kupsch et al. 2012). Eight reclamation monitoring plots are located in this plant community type (Table C.3-2).

Table C.3-1 Dominant or Indicator Species Associated with Control Cluster 1 (NFA1)

Plant Community NFA1 Cluster 1 8 obs. Plant Species Common Name Avg. Const. Festuca hallii plains rough fescue 53.6 100.0 Stipa curtiseta western porcupine grass 6.3 100.0 Danthonia intermedia intermediate oat grass 2.2 37.5 Geum triflorum three-flowered avens 2.1 50.0 Achillea millefolium common yarrow 1.8 100.0 Galium boreale northern bedstraw 1.7 75.0 Symphoricarpos occidentalis buckbrush (northern snowberry) 1.3 37.5

Table C.3-2 Site Conditions Associated with Control Cluster 1

Monitoring Site ID Ecodistrict Ecological Range Site Range Health Soil Series

AIHH00C WNT Lo not available HATH1/I4h AIHH07C WNT Lo not available HATH1/I4h AIHH99C WNT Lo not available HATH1/I4h AIPL07C NEU Lo not available not available AIPL08C NEU Lo not available not available ELPL03C END Lo Healthy HND10/H1h ELPL09C END Lo Healthy HND10/H1h

PAR1521C DRU Lo Healthy HND



Control Cluster 2 - NFA1. Plains Rough Fescue – Western Porcupine Grass Cluster 2 consists of 16 observations which correlate to the NFA1 reference grassland plant community on moist Loamy range sites in the Northern Fescue (Table C.3-3). This cluster is similar to Cluster 1 with plains rough fescue as the dominant species followed by western porcupine grass, but appears to represent the mid to low ecological status for the NFA1 plant community. The difference could be related to a slight increase in grazing pressure for Cluster 2 compared to Cluster 1. The average cover of plains rough fescue is lower while average cover of western porcupine grass is higher compared to Cluster 1. Shrub and aspen forest encroachment will likely occur on lower slope positions. This plant community is at risk to invasion by Kentucky bluegrass and awnless brome under moderate to heavy grazing pressure.

Soils are primarily Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems and to a lesser extent Orthic Black Chernozems on inclined to hummocky landscapes. Soil exposure, and moss and lichen will be similar to the NFA7 reference plant community. Sixteen reclamation monitoring plots are located in this plant community type (Table C.3-4).


Plant Community NFA1 Cluster 2 16 obs. Plant Species Common Name Avg. Const. Festuca hallii plains rough fescue 37.1 100.0 Stipa curtiseta western porcupine grass 10.8 100.0 Carex stenophylla low sedge 4.4 75.0 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 3.9 62.5 Geum triflorum three-flowered avens 2.3 56.3 Achillea millefolium common yarrow 2.1 93.8 Symphoricarpos occidentalis buckbrush (northern snowberry) 4.3 37.5


Monitoring Site ID Ecodistrict Ecological Range Site Range Health Soil

AIHH08C WNT Lo not available HATH1/I4h AIHH96C WNT Lo not available HATH1/I4h ELPL05C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h ELPL08C END Lo Healthy HND10/H1h ELPL12C END Lo Healthy HND10/H1h ELPL13C END Lo Healthy HND10/H1h ELWS03C END Lo Healthy HND10/H1h ELWS05C END Lo Healthy HNPR1/HP1m ELWS07C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h ELWS14C END Lo not available HND10/H1h ELWS21C END Lo not available HND10/H1h ELWS26C END Lo Healthy HND10/H1h ELWS28C END Lo Healthy HND10/H1h DDDD43C NEU Lo Healthy HND4/HR2h DDDD49C NEU Lo Healthy OVE/H1l FFFF51C NEU SY Healthy MET/I3h



Control Cluster 6 - NFA2. Plains Rough Fescue - Kentucky Bluegrass Cluster 6 consists of 12 observations which correlate to the late seral plant community NFA1 on moist Loamy range sites in the Northern Fescue (Kupsch et al. 2012) (Table C.3-5). Plains rough fescue is still dominant but the cover is reduced while western porcupine grass has increased appreciably due to moderate grazing pressure. The cover of some forbs and graminoids, such as pasture sagewort, prairie crocus, low sedge and June grass, will increase due to their adaptation to moderate grazing pressure. Shrub and aspen forest encroachment will likely occur on lower slope positions. Kentucky bluegrass is present in the NFA2 community which is consistent with Cluster 6 even though the cover and constancy (0.3% and 50%, respectively) were relatively low. Similar to Clusters 1 and 2, it is probable that this plant community is at risk to invasion by Kentucky bluegrass and awnless brome under moderate to heavy grazing pressure. Kupsch (et al. 2012) indicated that recovery back to the NFA1 plant community is possible under a light to moderate grazing regime; however Kentucky bluegrass will most likely be present at low but consistent levels.

Soils associated with this cluster are Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems on hummocky landscapes. Twelve reclamation monitoring plots are located in this plant community type (Table C.3-6).


Plant Community NFA2 Cluster 6 12 obs. Plant Species Common Name Avg. Const. Festuca hallii plains rough fescue 22.3 100.0 Stipa curtiseta western porcupine grass 18.7 100.0 Carex stenophylla low sedge 7.3 100.0 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 8.5 100.0 Anemone patens prairie crocus 3.1 100.0 Cerastium arvense field mouse-ear chickweed 1.5 100.0 Rosa arkansana prairie rose 3.1 91.7



ELPL01C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h ELPL11C END Lo not available HND10/H1h ELPL14C END Lo Healthy HND10/H1h ELPL16C END Lo Healthy HND10/H1m ELWS06C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h ELWS12C END Lo Healthy HND10/H1h ELWS17C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h ELWS18C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h ELWS19C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h ELWS23C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h ELWS24C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h ELWS27C DRU Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h



Control Cluster 7 - NFC2. Snowberry/Plains Rough Fescue - Kentucky Bluegrass Cluster 7 represents 9 observations which correlate to a mid seral shrub plant community for the reference plant community Snowberry/Plains Rough Fescue (NFC1) on lower slope to level moist Loamy range sites (Kupsch et al. 2012) (Table C.3-7). Plains rough fescue and snowberry are the dominant species in the plant community. Snowberry appears to be encroaching onto moist grassland sites due to fire suppression. Kentucky bluegrass is present as a subdominant invasive species as a result of moderate to heavy grazing pressure and a favourable moisture regime. This plant community is at risk to invasion of Kentucky bluegrass where grazing pressure is heavy. Kentucky bluegrass will increase in cover to become co-dominant with plains rough fescue (Kupsch et al. 2012).

Soils are generally Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems on hummocky landscapes. Nine reclamation monitoring plots are located in this plant community type (Table C.3-8).

Table C.3-7 Dominant or Indicator Species Associated with Control Cluster 7 (NFC2)

Plant Community NFC2 Cluster 7 9 obs. Plant Species Common Name Avg. Const. Festuca hallii plains rough fescue 20.7 100.0 Stipa curtiseta western porcupine grass 9.5 100.0 Poa pratensis L. Kentucky bluegrass 7.9 88.9 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 3.6 88.9 Achillea millefolium common yarrow 2.8 88.9 Artemisia ludoviciana prairie sagewort 2.2 66.7 Symphoricarpos occidentalis buckbrush (northern snowberry) 12.3 88.9



ELPL04C END Lo Healthy with problems HND2/HP1h ELPL15C END Lo Healthy HND10/H1h ELWS04C END Lo Healthy with problems HNPR1/HP1m ELWS08C END Lo Healthy with problems HNPR1/HP1m ELWS09C END Lo Healthy with problems HNPR1/HP1m ELWS22C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h ELWS32C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1m FFFF27C NEU OV Healthy with problems HND/H1hd FFFF36C NEU SY Healthy MET/H1m



Control Cluster 8 - NFA7 Western Porcupine Grass - Plains Rough Fescue / NFA10 Plains Rough Fescue - Sedge Cluster 8 consists of 12 observations which appear to represent a reference to late seral grassland community types on late phase Solonetz (Blowout), Rego Dark Brown Chernozem (Limy) and Orthic Dark Brown Chernozem (Loamy - dry) range sites (Table C.3-9). Blowout and Limy range sites have soil features, such as a weak hardpan layer or free lime that limit growth and productivity, respectively. The Loamy - dry range site is usually associated with crest and south aspects on upper slope positions where the moisture regime is lower, which reduces productivity. The NFA7 (Lo-dry) and NFA10 (BlO) appear to correlate to subsets within Cluster 8 based on differentiation by range site. Indicator species are plains rough fescue, sedges, wheat grasses, western porcupine grass, pasture sagewort and prairie crocus (Kupsch et al. 2012). The plant communities have a lower cover of plains rough fescue and greater diversity of other graminoids. This cluster should be less susceptible to invasion by agronomic species due to inherent limitations of the range sites.

Soils are classified as Orthic and Solonetzic Dark Brown Chernozems, and Dark Brown Solodized Solonetz on primarily inclined to hummocky landscapes. Twelve reclamation monitoring plots are located in this plant community type (Table C.3-10).

Table C.3-9 Dominant or Indicator Species Associated with Control Cluster 8 (NFA7/NFA10)

Plant Community NFA7/NFA10 Cluster 8 12 obs. Plant Species Common Name Avg. Const. Festuca hallii plains rough fescue 16.1 100.0 Stipa curtiseta western porcupine grass 10.5 100.0 Carex pensylvanica sun-loving sedge 7.5 83.3 Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus Northern wheat grass 5.7 91.7 Koeleria macrantha June grass 2.8 91.7 Anemone patens prairie crocus 2.1 83.3 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 1.9 91.7



AIHH97C WNT Lo HATH1/I4h APAC01C NEU Lo Healthy HND APAC02C NEU Lo HND

HUSK732C WNT Lo HND DDDD24C NEU Lo Healthy with problems HND6/H1hd DDDD26C NEU BlO Healthy HKR/H1hd DDDD36C NEU SY Healthy with problems MET/H1h DDDD46C NEU Lo Healthy with problems OVE/H1m DDDD53C NEU BlO Healthy with problems HNDI3l DDDD54C NEU BlO Healthy HRK/I3h

X04C97 CAS BlO HKR X04C99 CAS BlO HKR



Control Cluster 4 - NFA8. Sedge - Plains Rough Fescue - Western Porcupine Grass Cluster 4 consists of 16 observations which appear to represent a mid-seral grassland community type for the Western Porcupine Grass - Plains Rough Fescue (NFA7) reference plant community on Loamy - dry range sites (Table C.3-11). Increased grazing pressure has reduced the cover of plains rough fescue and western porcupine grass which are replaced by grazing resistant species such as pasture sagewort, upland sedges and June grass. With increased grazing pressure comes the risk of invasion by Kentucky bluegrass and awnless brome (Kupsch et al. 2012). Kentucky bluegrass and awnless brome were recorded in this cluster at 0.9% cover and a constancy of 43.8%, and 0.4 % cover and a constancy of 12.5%, respectively.

Soils associated with this cluster were predominantly Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems on hummocky landscapes. Sixteen reclamation monitoring plots are located in this plant community type (Table C.3-12).


Plant Community NFA8 Cluster 4 16 obs. Plant Species Common Name Avg. Const. Stipa curtiseta western porcupine grass 15.1 100.0 Carex species* undifferentiated sedge 12.0 100.0 Koeleria macrantha June grass 11.3 100.0 Festuca hallii plains rough fescue 9.2 100.0 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 13.1 100.0 Erigeron caespitosus tufted fleabane 3.2 68.8 Anemone patens prairie crocus 1.8 81.3

*Carex stenophylla (8.5%) & Carex pensylvanica (3.5%)



ELPL06C END Lo Unhealthy HND10/H1h ELPL07C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h ELPL10C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h ELPL17C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1m ELWS01C END Lo Unhealthy HND10/H1h ELWS02C END Lo Unhealthy HND14/H1m ELWS10C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h ELWS11C END Lo Unhealthy HND10/H1h ELWS13C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h ELWS15C END Lo Unhealthy HND10/H1h ELWS16C END Lo Unhealthy HND10/H1h ELWS20C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h ELWS25C END Lo Healthy HND10/H1h ELWS29C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1m ELWS30C DRU Lo Unhealthy HND10/H1m ELWS33C END Lo HND10/H1m



Control Cluster 5 - NFA9. Blue Grama – Sedge Cluster 5 consists of 11 observations which correlate to an early to mid-seral grassland community type for the Western Porcupine Grass - Plains Rough Fescue (NFA7) reference community on Loamy - dry range sites (Table C.3-13). Moderate to heavy grazing pressure has reduced the cover of plains rough fescue and western porcupine grass which are replaced by grazing resistant species such as upland sedges and blue grama and pasture sagewort. This plant community appears to be associated with drier upper southerly and southwesterly aspects on low to high relief hummocky landscapes (Kupsch et al. 2012). The low moisture regime appears to favour the native low growing graminoids and grazing resistant forbs over agronomic species such as Kentucky bluegrass and awnless brome. This successional process should allow plains rough fescue and western porcupine to recover with a reduction in grazing pressure.

Soils associated with this cluster were predominantly Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems on hummocky landscapes. Eleven reclamation monitoring plots are located in this plant community type (Table C.3-14).


Plant Community NFA9 Cluster 5 11 obs. Plant Species Common Name Avg. Const. Festuca hallii plains rough fescue 13.4 100.0 Carex species undifferentiated sedge 10.5 100.0 Bouteloua gracilis blue grama 4.3 90.9 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 4.6 90.9 Anemone patens prairie crocus 2.0 81.8 Achillea millefolium common yarrow 1.4 81.8 Symphoricarpos occidentalis buckbrush (northern snowberry) 1.8 63.6



AIHH04C WNT Lo HATH1/I4h AINH00C NEU Lo CNHN10/H1l AINH04C NEU Lo CNHN10/H1l AINH07C NEU Lo CNHN10/H1l AINH96C NEU Lo CNHN10/H1l AINH97C NEU Lo CNHN10/H1l AINH99C NEU Lo CNHN10/H1l AIPL05C NEU Lo AIPL06C NEU Lo

PAR1330C END Lo Healthy HND PAR2330C END Lo Healthy HND



Control Cluster 3 - NFA9. Blue Grama - Sedge Cluster 3 consists of 15 observations which appear to correlate to an early seral grassland community type for the Western Porcupine Grass - Plains Rough Fescue (NFA7) reference plant community (Table C.3-15). Heavy grazing pressure has reduced the cover of plains rough fescue to less than 3% cover for this cluster. Western porcupine grass is present but grazing resistant species such as upland sedges, blue grama and pasture sagewort have increased in cover. This plant community is primarily associated with Loamy - dry and late phase Blowout range sites. The aspect and slope are variable for this cluster ranging from northerly and southerly aspects, and crest to mid slope (0 to 18%) positions. Generally, the range sites are drier due to south aspects, and inherent soil limiting characteristics. Successional processes should allow plains rough fescue and western porcupine grass to recover with a reduction in grazing pressure.

Soils are predominantly Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems and Dark Brown Solodized Solonetz on low to high relief inclined and hummocky landscapes. Fifteen reclamation monitoring plots are located in this plant community type (Table C.3-16).


Plant Community NFA9 Cluster 3 15 obs. Plant Species Common Name Avg. Const. Stipa curtiseta western porcupine grass 21.7 100.0 Carex species* undifferentiated sedge 9.0 93.3 Bouteloua gracilis blue grama 6.4 80.0 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 3.6 100.0 Artemisia ludoviciana prairie sagewort 1.3 33.3 Anemone patens prairie crocus 1.2 73.3 Symphoricarpos occidentalis buckbrush (northern snowberry) 1.4 33.3 *Carex obtusata (3.5%) Carex pensylvanica (3.2%) Carex stenophylla (2.3%)


Monitoring Site ID Ecodistrict Ecological

Range Site Range Health Soil

CNRL01C NEU SY Healthy with problems HND14/H1m CNRL03C NEU Lo Healthy with problems HND14/H1m ELPL02C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h ELWS31C DRU Lo Unhealthy HND10/H1h ELWS34C END Lo Healthy with problems HND10/H1h DDDD13C NEU Lo Healthy with problems HND/H1l DDDD29C NEU Lo Unhealthy HND/H1m DDDD30C NEU Lo Healthy with problems HND/H1l DDDD33C NEU Lo Healthy with problems HND/I3h DDDD42C NEU Lo Healthy with problems HND/HR2h DDDD50C NEU BlO Unhealthy HKR/I3h

SA103C DRU Lo CNN5/U1h FFFF31C NEU SY Healthy with problems DCY/H1l FFFF52C NEU BlO Healthy CUR/I3I X04C10 CAS BlO 100 HKR/U1h



C.4 Results - Plant Communities on Recovering Disturbance

Cluster 1 - Slender Wheat grass - Green Needle Grass Cluster 1 (Table C.4-1) consists of 17 observations reclaimed with seed mixes (contractor mix or LDIAPL mixes (Mix A1 or A2)) composed of native grasses (Table C.4-2). The LDIAPL sites (DDDD) also included planted plains rough rescue plugs. Vegetation transects were completed between 2 to 5 years since reclamation with the majority of sites assessed in year three.

The cluster represents early to mid-seral grassland plant communities dominated by seeded species of slender wheat grass at 19.2% cover, green needle grass at 11.8% cover and minor amounts of northern and western wheat grasses (Table C.4-1). Plains rough fescue was in all the seed mixes and was recorded on each site. Western porcupine grass seed was not included in Mix A1, but was recorded in the treatments; therefore it would appear to have established as an infill species. Pasture sagewort is the dominant native infill species at 6.9% followed by prairie sagewort at approximately 1.3% each.

Of the 17 observations, 13 appear to be on a positive trajectory to native dominated plant communities while 4 sites are trending-to-modified due to the higher cover, as individual or combined species, of awnless brome, Kentucky bluegrass, sheep fescue and quack grass. Only one control site adjoining the 4 trending-to-modified sites recorded a non-native species (Kentucky bluegrass at 0.2%).

Reclaimed soils are predominately Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems correlated to the Loamy-dry range site.

Table C.4-1 Dominant or Indicator Species Associated with Disturbance Cluster 1

Plant Species Common Name Cluster 1 17 obs. Avg. Const. Elymus trachycaulus var. trachycaulus slender wheat grass 19.2 100.0 Stipa viridula green needle grass 11.8 94.1 Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus northern wheat grass 3.7 88.2 Festuca hallii plains rough fescue 1.8 100.0 Stipa curtiseta western porcupine grass 1.6 82.4 Agropyron smithii western wheat grass 1.3 94.1 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 6.9 94.1 Artemisia ludoviciana prairie sagewort 1.6 41.2



Table C.4-2 Treatments and Site Conditions Associated with Disturbance Cluster 1

Monitoring Site ID Treatment Years Since

Reclamation GVI Eco-district

Control Plant Community

Disturbance Range Health

Control Range Health

AIHH97M02 ARC Diverse Seed Mix, Wellsite 2 Lo WNT NFA7

AINH00M02 ARC Diverse Seed Mix, Wellsite 5 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha

AINH97M03 ARC Reclamation Seed Mix, Wellsite 2 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha

AIPL06M02 Contractor's Seed mix, PL 2 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha AIPL07M02 Contractor's Seed mix, PL 3 Lo NEU NFA1 high

DDDD13R Disturbed topsoil; Seeded,

PL, Seed Mix A1, Rough fescue plugs, Site fenced

3 Lo OYE NFA9 Stcu Healthy

with problems

Healthy with

problems

DDDD24R Disturbed topsoil, Seeded,


3 Lo NEU NFA7 Healthy

with problems

Healthy with

problems



3 BlO NEU NFA7 Unhealthy Healthy



3 Lo NEU NFA9 Stcu Unhealthy Unhealthy

DDDD33R

Disturbed topsoil, Seeded, PL, Seed Mix A1, Rough

fescue plugs, Site fenced but gate open to grazing

3 Lo NEU NFA9 Stcu Healthy

with problems

Healthy with

problems



3 SY NEU NFA7 Healthy

with problems

Healthy with

problems



3 Lo NEU NFA9 Stcu Unhealthy Healthy

with problems

DDDD46R

Disturbed topsoil, Seeded, PL, Seed Mix A2 revised,

Rough fescue plugs, Site fenced

3 Lo NEU NFA7 Healthy

with problems

Healthy with

problems

DDDD48R


Rough fescue plugs, Site not fenced

3 Lo NEU Healthy

with problems

Healthy with

problems

DDDD49R


Rough fescue plugs, Site fenced, but grazed

3 Lo NEU NFA1 low Unhealthy Healthy

DDDD50R

Disturbed topsoil, Seeded, PL, Seed Mix A1, Rough

fescue plugs, Site fenced but has been grazed

3 BlO NEU NFA9 Stcu Unhealthy Unhealthy

DDDD53R


Rough fescue plugs, Site fenced

3 BlO NEU NFA7 Healthy

with problems

Healthy with

problems



Cluster 2 - Slender Wheat grass - Green Needle Grass - Plains Rough Fescue Cluster 2 (Table C.4-3) consists of 13 observations reclaimed with a contractor mix composed of native grasses and a collected mix composed of native grasses and forbs (Table C.4-4). Vegetation transects were completed between 2 to 12 years since reclamation with the majority of sites assessed in year four.

The cluster presents mid-seral plant communities dominated by seeded slender wheat grass at 40.1% and green needle grass at 5.1% (see Table C.4-3). Plains rough fescue has the third highest cover for grasses. The transect completed at year 12 had the highest cover of plains rough fescue at 12.0%, but still had a relatively high cover of slender wheat grass at 31.0%. Pasture sagewort and wild vetch were the dominant native forb species at 8.5% and 2.9%, respectively. Pasture sagewort established as infill whereas the source for wild vetch appears to be from infill. Buckbrush established from infill and was recorded at 2.4% cover and constancy of 46.2%.

The 13 observations appear to be on a positive trajectory to native dominated plant communities. Kentucky bluegrass was recorded at relatively low cover values on 3 sites, ranging from 0.2% to 1.2%.

Reclaimed soils are representative of Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems (7 sites) correlated to the Loamy-dry range site and Orthic Black Chernozems (6 sites) correlated to the Loamy-moist range.


Plant Species Common Name Cluster 2 13 Obs. Avg. Const. Elymus trachycaulus var. trachycaulus Slender wheat grass 40.1 100.0 Stipa viridula green needle grass 5.1 53.8 Festuca hallii plains rough fescue 2.4 92.3 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 8.5 69.2 Vicia americana wild vetch 2.9 84.6 Artemisia ludoviciana prairie sagewort 1.1 61.5 Symphoricarpos occidentalis buckbrush (northern snowberry) 2.4 46.2


Monitoring Site ID Treatment Years Since Reclamation GVI Eco-

district Control Plant Community

AIHH97M03 ARC Mod. Reclamation Mix 2 Lo WNT NFA1 high AIHH98M03 ARC Mod. Reclamation Mix 3 Lo WNT NFA1 high

AIHH99M03 ARC Mod. Reclamation Mix 4 Lo WNT NFA7 AIHH00M03 ARC Mod. Reclamation Mix 5 Lo WNT

AINH98M03 ARC Mod. Reclamation Mix 3 Lo NEU

AINH99M03 ARC Mod. Reclamation Mix 4 Lo NEU NFA1 high AINH00M03 ARC Mod. Reclamation Mix 5 Lo NEU NFA1 high

AINH07M03 ARC Mod. Reclamation Mix 12 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha

AIHH98M02 ARC Diverse Seed Mix 3 Lo WNT NFA9 Feha AIHH99M02 ARC Diverse Seed Mix 4 Lo WNT

AIHH00M02 ARC Diverse Seed Mix 5 Lo WNT AINH98M02 ARC Diverse Seed Mix 3 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha

AINH99M02 ARC Diverse Seed Mix 4 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha

Note: No range health scores available for the sites in Disturbance Cluster 2



Cluster 3 - Awnless Brome - Kentucky Bluegrass Cluster 3 (Table C.4-5) consists of 5 observations reclaimed with agronomic species mix, the Rumsey mix composed of native grasses and as natural recovery (Table C.4-6). Vegetation transects were completed between 12 and 18 years since reclamation.

The cluster represents a modified plant community (>70% cover of non-natives species) dominated by awnless brome (44.0%), Kentucky bluegrass (12.2%), sheep fescue (6%) and to a lesser extent quack grass, intermediate wheat grass, crested wheat grass and sweet clover (see Table C.4-5). Western wheat grass is the dominant native infill and seeded grass at 4.7% while plains rough fescue was present at only 0.5% cover on a natural recovery site. Western porcupine grass was not recorded at any of the sites. Native infill forbs were dominated by pasture sagewort and common yarrow at less than 1% each. Common wild rose was recorded at 2.4% cover on 3 sites.

The 5 observations are on a negative trajectory to a modified plant community composed of non-native and native species based on the years since reclamation. Two sites seeded with the agronomic mix 18 years ago would be expected to be modified or near so. Two of the remaining three sites had either no non-natives in the control or a relatively low cover 0.5% and 2.5%, for crested wheat grass and awnless brome, respectively. The control transect data for the fifth site was not available.

Reclaimed soils are representative of Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems correlated to Loamy-dry and moist range sites.


Plant Species Common Name Cluster 3 5 Obs. Avg. Const. Bromus inermis awnless brome 44.0 100.0 Poa pratensis L. Kentucky bluegrass 12.2 100.0 Festuca ovina sheep fescue 6.0 40.0 Agropyron smithii western wheat grass 4.7 60.0 Festuca hallii plains rough fescue 0.5 20.0 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 0.8 60.0 Achillea millefolium common yarrow 0.4 60.0 Rosa woodsii common wild rose 2.4 60.0







AINH07NR Natural Recovery, WS 12 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha

AINH08NR Natural Recovery, WS 13 Lo NEU

ELWS24D Topsoil stripping, Agronomic mix, Currently fenced

18 Lo END NFA2 Unhealthy Healthy with problems


18 Lo DRU NFA2 Healthy with problems

Healthy with problems

ELWS34D Topsoil stripping,

Rumsey mix, Currently fenced

13 Lo END NFA9 Stcu Healthy with problems

Healthy with problems



Cluster 4 - Awnless Brome - Slender Wheat grass - Kentucky Bluegrass Cluster 4 (Table C.4-7) consists of 16 observations reclaimed with variety of native and agronomic seed mixes, planted plains rough fescue plugs and as natural recovery (Table C.4-8). Vegetation transects were completed between 3 and 23 years since reclamation.

The cluster represents a trending-to-modified plant community (40.2% relative cover of non-natives species) dominated by awnless brome (14.0%), Kentucky bluegrass (4.7%) and to a lesser extent quack grass, alfalfa and crested wheat grass (Table C.4-7). Plains rough fescue was recorded in all 4 reclamation type practices, but not in all of the 16 sites. Plains rough fescue ranged in cover from 0 to 8.0%; the highest value was recorded in a collected seed treatment site compared no record in the majority of the natural recovery sites. Slender wheat grass had the highest cover at 6.8% for seeded native grass species; it was also present in most of the natural recovery sites. Prairie sagewort is the dominant native infill forb, followed by common yarrow and wild vetch which could have come from native infill.

The 16 observations appear to be on a negative trajectory toward a modified plant community composed of non-native and native species, based on the medium to long term years since reclamation.

Reclaimed soils are representative of Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems (9 sites) correlated to Loamy-dry and moist range sites, Orthic Black Chernozems (7 sites) correlated to Loamy-moist and a Dark Brown Solodized Solonetz correlated to transition Blowout - Loamy range site.


Plant Species Common Name Cluster 4 16 Obs. Avg. Const. Bromus inermis awnless brome 14.0 75.0 Elymus trachycaulus var. trachycaulus slender wheat grass 6.8 75.0 Poa pratensis L. Kentucky bluegrass 4.7 62.5 Artemisia ludoviciana prairie sagewort 8.1 87.5 Achillea millefolium common yarrow 3.4 75.0 Vicia americana wild vetch 2.6 75.0 Festuca hallii plains rough fescue 1.1 43.8









AIHH04M02 ARC Diverse Seed Mix 9 Lo WNT NFA9 Feha AIHH04M03 ARC Mod. Reclamation

Mix 9 Lo WNT NFA9 Feha AIHH04NR Natural Recovery, WS 9 Lo WNT NFA9 Feha AIHH07NR Natural Recovery, WS 12 Lo WNT NFA1 high

AIHH08M03 ARC Mod. Reclamation Mix 13 Lo WNT NFA1 low

AIHH08NR Natural Recovery, WS 13 Lo WNT NFA1 low AINH00NR Natural Recovery, WS 5 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha AINH04NR Natural Recovery, WS 9 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha

ELWS08D Topsoil stripping, Agronomic mix,

Never fenced 23 Lo END NFC2 Unhealthy Healthy with

problems


Rumsey mix, Never fenced



Never fenced 23 Lo END NFA8 Healthy with

problems Unhealthy


Rumsey mix, Historically fenced



Historically fenced 23 Lo END NFA8 Healthy with

problems Healthy

DDDD43R

Disturbed topsoil, Seeded, PL,

Seed Mix A1 revised, Rough fescue plugs,

Not fenced

3 Lo NEU NFA1 low Unhealthy Healthy

DDDD54R

Disturbed topsoil, Seeded, PL,

Seed Mix A1, Rough fescue plugs,

Fenced


FFFF49R


Site is fenced, but grazed

51 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha Healthy (tame pasture) Healthy



Cluster 5 - Plains Rough Fescue - Green Needle Grass - Slender Wheat grass Cluster 5 (Table C.4-9) consists of 17 observations reclaimed with a variety of native grass seed mixes and a collected mix composed of native grasses and forbs (Table C.4-10). Vegetation transects were completed between 4 and 30 years following reclamation with the majority occurring between the 12 and 13 year.

The cluster represents a mid to late mid-seral native plant community dominated by plains rough fescue at 22.0% and seeded grasses of green needle grass and slender wheat grass at 10.6% and 5.7 % cover, respectively. Western porcupine grass was present, but at low cover averaging 2.6% and a constancy of 47.1%. It appears that dominance of plains rough fescue in this cluster relative to Cluster 4 could be due to minimal disturbance construction and/or superior reclamation practices.

The seeded native wheat grasses and green needle grass appear to be diminishing in cover. Prairie and pasture sageworts are the dominant native infill forbs, followed by wild vetch and common yarrow which could have come from native infill.

Twelve of the observations appear to be on a positive trajectory to native dominated plant communities. Kentucky bluegrass and awnless brome as individual or combined were present in 5 out of 12 sites at 2.5% to 5% cover. The remaining 4 observations are trending-to-modified with Kentucky bluegrass and awnless brome as individual or combined at 6.9% to 22.8% cover.

Reclaimed soils are representative of Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems (11 sites) correlated to Loamy-dry and moist range sites and Orthic Black Chernozems (6 sites) correlated to Loamy-moist range sites.


Plant Species Common Name Cluster 5 17 Obs. Avg. Const. Festuca hallii plains rough fescue 22.0 100.0 Stipa viridula green needle grass 10.6 100.0 Elymus trachycaulus var. trachycaulus slender wheat grass 5.7 52.9 Artemisia ludoviciana prairie sagewort 4.4 82.4 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 4.2 70.6 Vicia americana wild vetch 2.7 70.6 Achillea millefolium common yarrow 2.3 58.8









AIHH04M01 ARC Simple seed mix 9 Lo WNT NFA9 Feha AIHH07M01 ARC Simple seed mix 12 Lo WNT NFA1 high AIHH07M02 ARC Diverse Seed Mix 12 Lo WNT NFA1 high AIHH07M03 ARC Mod.

Reclamation Mix 12 Lo WNT NFA1 high AIHH08M01 ARC Simple seed mix 13 Lo WNT NFA1 low AIHH08M02 ARC Diverse Seed Mix 13 Lo WNT NFA1 low AINH04M01 ARC Simple seed mix 9 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha AINH04M02 ARC Diverse Seed Mix 9 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha AINH07M01 ARC Simple seed mix 12 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha AINH07M02 ARC Diverse Seed Mix 12 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha AINH08M01 ARC Simple seed mix 13 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha AINH08M03 ARC Mod.

Reclamation Mix 13 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha

APAC02R WS; full width strip,

seeded, Unfenced

20 Lo NEU NFA7 Healthy with problems Healthy

ELPL09D PL, Topsoil stripping,

Natural recovery likely based on age

30 Lo END NFA1 high Healthy Healthy

ELWS05D Minimal disturbance,

Natural recovery, Currently fenced

4 Lo END NFA1 low Healthy with problems Healthy

ELWS21D ?? Lo END NFA1 low HUSK732R WS,

Seed Mix 7 Lo WNT NFA7 Healthy Healthy



Cluster 6 - Green Needle Grass - Western Wheat grass - Awned Wheat grass Cluster 6 (Table C.4-11) consists of 12 observations reclaimed with native grass seed mixes and agronomic seed mixes (may include native grasses) (Table C.4-12). Vegetation transects were completed between 3 and 55 years following reclamation.

The cluster represents a mid-seral native plant community dominated by seeded green needle grass at 26%, western wheat grass at 8.8% and awned wheat grass at 8.7% (Table C.4-12). Awned wheat grass appears as a replacement to slender wheat grass as the dominant short-lived wheat grass bunch-type seeded in over half of the monitoring sites. The presence of Kentucky bluegrass has this cluster at or near trending-to-modified. The near term sites (3 to 5 years since reclamation) did not record Kentucky bluegrass, whereas 5 of the mid to long term sites (9 to 51 years since reclamation) did record Kentucky bluegrass ranging from 5.3 % to 22.5% cover. The ELPL04D site was the only long terms (30 years) that did not record the bluegrass.

Plains rough fescue averaged 2.0% cover and a 50% constancy overall. The four near term sites (3 to 5 since reclamation) had the highest cover (2.3% to 6.9%) but it was absent or at low values (0% to 2.5%) for the remaining sites. Pasture and prairie sageworts are the dominant native infill forbs at 3.8% and 1.5%, respectively. Buckbrush averaged 10.3% cover and a constancy of 50%, with 5 sites having a cover greater than 18%, which could be interpreted as shrubland communities. This interpretation is supported by 2 adjoining control sites categorized as shrubland communities.

Approximately half of the sites are on a positive trajectory toward a native plant community as represented by the near term (3 to 5 years) and two long term (30 and 51 years) since reclamation monitoring sites. The other half of this cluster are on a negative trajectory toward trending-to-modified based on the cover Kentucky bluegrass ranging from 8% to 22.5%. Future monitoring of the positive trajectory sites would be valuable to see if the seeded native grass species (green needle grass and wheat grasses) are replaced by desirable species of plains rough fescue and western porcupine, or the undesirable species of Kentucky bluegrass and other non-native grass species.

Reclaimed soils are representative of Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems (7 sites) correlated to Loamy-dry and moist range sites, Orthic Black Chernozems (3 sites) correlated to Loamy-moist range sites and a Solonetzic Dark Brown Chernozem correlated to a Loamy-dry range site. One site (AIPL08M02) did not have any detailed soils information.

Table C.4.11. Dominant or Indicator Species Associated with Disturbance Cluster 6.

Plant Species Common Name Cluster 6 12 Obs. Avg. Const. Stipa viridula green needle grass 26.0 100.0 Agropyron smithii western wheat grass 8.8 75.0 Elymus trachycaulus var. subsecundus awned wheat grass 8.7 66.7 Poa pratensis L. Kentucky bluegrass 6.7 58.3 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 3.8 75.0 Artemisia ludoviciana prairie sagewort 1.5 58.3 Symphoricarpos occidentalis buckbrush (northern snowberry) 10.3 50.0









AIHH98M01 ARC Simple seed mix 3 Lo WNT NFA1 high AIHH99M01 ARC Simple seed mix 4 Lo WNT AIHH00M01 ARC Simple seed mix 5 Lo WNT NFA1 high AIPL08M02 Contractor's Seed mix

Pipeline 4 Lo NEU NFA1 high

ELPL04D Pipeline, Topsoil stripping, Agronomic seed mix 30 Lo END NFC2

Healthy with

Problems

Healthy with

problems

ELPL11D Pipeline, ?, ? 19 Lo END NFA2 ?

ELPL16D Pipeline, Topsoil stripping, Agronomic seed mix 30 Lo END NFA2 Healthy Healthy

ELWS04D Topsoil stripping, Agronomic mix, Never fenced

28 Lo END NFC2 Healthy

with problems

Healthy with

problems



9 Lo END Healthy

with problems

Healthy with

problems



23 Lo END Healthy

with problems

Healthy

FFFF30R


Site not fenced, but has been grazed

55 Lo NEU Healthy

with problems

Healthy with

problems

FFFF46R Seed Mix A1 revised, Rough fescue plugs,

Site is fenced 51 Lo NEU

Healthy with

problems

Healthy with

problems



Cluster 7 - Sheep Fescue - Western Wheat grass Cluster 7 (Table C.4-13) consists of 5 observations reclaimed with a mix of agronomic and native grass species (Table C.4-14). Vegetation transects were completed between 19 and 51years following reclamation.

The cluster represents a trending-to-modified plant community (56.3% relative cover of non-natives species) dominated by sheep fescue at 31.7% cover and to a lesser extent, meadow brome (6.6%), intermediate wheat grass (1.6%) and Kentucky bluegrass (0.8%) (Table C.4-13). Sheep fescue was probably considered a compatible species at the time of reclamation and included in all 5 seed mixes. Meadow brome and intermediate wheat grass were probably considered compatible species at the time as well and included in the FFFF mixes. Sheep fescue appears to be a persistent1 species and adapted to the area over the long-term recovery from disturbance.

Western wheat grass is the dominant native grass at 4.4% cover followed by northern wheat grass and western porcupine grass at 2.5% and 2.4% cover, respectively. Western porcupine grass appears to be an infill species for the FFFF sites, but its origin in the APAC01R and ELWS22D sites cannot be verified. Plains rough fescue infill was recorded in the FFFF sites ranging from 0.2 to 2.2% cover, but was not recorded in the remaining 2 sites. Prairie and pasture sagewort are the dominant native infill forbs, at 4.0% and 1.3% cover, respectively.

The 5 observations are correlated to a negative seral stage which appears to have stabilized at a trending-to-modified plant community based on the long-term period from the years since reclamation. The long-term species composition for these sites will probably be a non-native / native plant community.

Reclaimed soils are representative of Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems (2 sites) correlated to Loamy-dry and moist range sites, Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems (1 site) correlated to a Sandy range site and Dark Brown Solodized Solonetz (2 sites) correlated to a late phase Blowout range sites.


Plant Species Common Name Cluster 7 5 Obs. Avg. Const. Festuca ovina sheep fescue 31.7 100.0 Agropyron smithii western wheat grass 4.4 80.0 Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus Northern wheat grass 2.5 80.0 Stipa curtiseta western porcupine grass 2.4 80.0 Artemisia ludoviciana prairie sagewort 4.0 80.0 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 1.3 80.0

1 In restoration or rehabilitation projects, or as natural phenomena, the state where a plant can maintain itself indefinitely once it has become established (Dunster and Dunster 1996).









APAC01R WS; full width strip,

Seeded, Unfenced

19 Lo NEU NFA7 Unhealthy Healthy



23 Lo END NFC2 Unhealthy Healthy

with problems

FFFF51R


Site is fenced but grazed

51 SY NEU NFA1 low Unhealthy Healthy


Site is fenced 51 BlO NEU NFA10 Unhealthy

Healthy with

problems

FFFF54R


Site is fenced but grazed




Cluster 8 - Snowberry - Kentucky Bluegrass Cluster 8 consists of 4 observations reclaimed with an agronomic mix, a native seed mix and an unknown mix (Table C.4-15). Vegetation transects were completed between 33 and 55 years since reclamation which represents a relatively long-term return interval.

The cluster presents an early seral shrubland community dominated by buckbrush at 47.6% cover, common wild rose at 2.2% cover and Kentucky bluegrass at 13.5% cover (Table C.4-16). Quack grass (24.0% cover) replaced Kentucky bluegrass at one site as the dominant non-native species. Plains rough fescue and western porcupine grass are still at low cover values of 1.7% and 3.2%, respectively, after this significant long period of recovery. Common yarrow and pasture sagewort are the dominant native infill forbs, at 3.5% and 2.8% cover. Upland sedges are re-establishing as a component of ground cover at 3.9% and a constancy of 75%.

Based on the years the since reclamation, the seral stage appears to have stabilized under the present conditions to a native / non-native plant community.

Reclaimed soils are representative of Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems correlated to Loamy-dry (2 sites), Sandy (1 site) and Overflow (1 site) range sites.


Plant Species Common Name Cluster 8 4 Obs. Avg. Const. Symphoricarpos occidentalis buckbrush 47.6 100.0 Rosa woodsii common wild rose 2.2 100.0 Poa pratensis L. Kentucky bluegrass 13.5 75.0 Stipa viridula green needle grass 4.2 100.0 Agropyron smithii western wheat grass 3.6 75.0 Achillea millefolium common yarrow 3.5 75.0 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 2.8 50.0 Carex species sedge species 3.9 75.0






Control Plant

Community




Never fenced 38 Lo END NFA8

Healthy with

problems Unhealthy

ELWS31D

Unknown construction method,

Unknown reveg method, Never fenced

33 Lo DRU NFA9 Stcu Healthy Unhealthy

FFFF27R Seed Mix A1,

Rough fescue plugs, Site is fenced

55 OV NEU NFC2 Healthy

with problems

Healthy with

problems



55 SY NEU NFC2 Healthy

with problems

Healthy with

problems



Cluster 9 - Kentucky Bluegrass - Western Wheat grass Cluster 9 (Table C.4-17) consists of 11 observations reclaimed with agronomic mixes, native mixes and as natural recovery (Table C.4-18). Vegetation transects were completed between 7 and 51 years following reclamation.

The cluster represents a trending-to-modified plant community (23.8% relative cover of non-natives species) dominated by Kentucky bluegrass at 19.3% cover and to lesser extent, awnless brome (3.3%) and sheep fescue (0.8%) (Table C.4-17). In this cluster, the presence of Kentucky bluegrass in 7 controls (ranging from 0.2% to 20% cover) probably contributed to invasion in the adjoining disturbances (ranging from 11.7% to 34.5% cover). However, 4 controls did not record any Kentucky bluegrass but it was present in the adjoining disturbances (ranging from 7.0% to 23.7% cover).

Western wheat grass and western porcupine grass are the dominant native grass at 8.0% and 5.5% cover, respectively. Western wheat grass appears to be from infill and seed mixes, whereas western porcupine grass is from infill based on a review of the species composition of the various mixes. Plains rough fescue cover was 3.3% and a constancy of 45.5% of which the highest relative cover was in the natural recovery treatments. Prairie and pasture sagewort are the dominant native infill forbs, at 6.0% and 5.1% cover, respectively. Buckbrush infill was recorded at 11.1% cover and constancy of 72.7%.

The 11 observations are either on a negative trajectory toward a trending-to-modified, or a relatively stable negative seral stage plant community. The composition will be a native / non-native plant community.

Reclaimed soils are representative of Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems correlated primarily to Loamy-moist range sites and one Dark Brown Solodized Solonetz correlated to a late phase Blowout range site.


Plant Species Common Name Cluster 9 11 Obs. Avg. Const. Poa pratensis L. Kentucky bluegrass 19.3 100.0 Agropyron smithii western wheat grass 8.0 90.9 Stipa curtiseta western porcupine grass 5.5 90.9 Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus Northern wheat grass 3.3 100.0 Artemisia ludoviciana prairie sagewort 6.0 90.9 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 5.1 81.8 Symphoricarpos occidentalis buckbrush 11.1 72.7






Control Plant

Community



ELPL03D Pipeline,

Topsoil stripping, Natural recovery

21 Lo END NFA1 high Unhealthy Healthy

ELPL05D Pipeline, PI Natural recovery 7 Lo END NFA1 low

Healthy with

Problems

Healthy with

problems

ELPL12D Pipeline,


16 Lo END NFA1 low Healthy Healthy


Never fenced 28 Lo END NFA2 Unhealthy

Healthy with

problems



9 Lo END NFA1 low Unhealthy Healthy

with problems


18 Lo END NFC2 Healthy

with problems

Healthy with

problems



23 Lo END NFA2 Unhealthy Healthy



23 Lo END NFA8 Unhealthy Unhealthy


Never fenced 28 Lo END NFA2 Unhealthy

Healthy with

problems





Site fenced, but grazed 51 BlO NEU NFA9 Stcu Unhealthy Healthy



Cluster 10 - Quack Grass - Kentucky Bluegrass Cluster 10 (Table C.4-19) consists of 4 observations reclaimed with a native and compatible agronomic species mix, an agronomic mix and native mix (Table C.4-20). Vegetation transects were completed between 8 and 38 years following reclamation.

The cluster presents a modified plant community (69.8% cover of non-natives species) dominated by quack grass at 22.6% cover, Kentucky bluegrass 9.8% cover, sweet clover at 21.3%, dandelion at 7.6% cover, and to a lesser extent, awnless brome (Table C.4-19). Sheep fescue, intermediate wheat grass and alfalfa were present in low quantities and probably included as compatible agronomic species as a reclamation practice in earlier years. The cover of non-native species in the controls were relatively low (quack grass at 3% on one site and Kentucky bluegrass at 0.2% on another site) compared to the disturbances.

The cover sweet clover was relatively high (33.5% and 50.0%) on two of the 3 sites. Sweet clover is a short-lived biennial but can readily establish on areas of sparse vegetation cover (Tannas 2003) and generally during years of above average precipitation. Therefore, the cover can be quite variable between years and not a good indicator of mid to long term seral plant communities.

Both western porcupine grass (0.5 % cover and a constancy of 25.0%) and plains rough fescue (no record) are relatively non-existent in this cluster. Pasture sagewort and common yarrow are the dominant native infill forbs, at 2.5% and 1.2% cover, respectively.

The 4 observations correlate to a negative seral stage modified plant community. The long-term species composition for these sites will probably be a non-native / native plant community.

Reclaimed soils are representative of Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems correlated to Loamy-moist, and Sandy range sites.


Plant Species Common Name Cluster 10 4 Obs. Avg. Const. Elytrigea repens var. repens quack grass 22.6 75.0 Poa pratensis L. Kentucky bluegrass 9.8 75.0 Agropyron smithii western wheat grass 3.9 75.0 Melilotus officinalis yellow sweet-clover 21.3 75.0 Taraxacum officinale common dandelion 7.6 50.0 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 2.5 75.0 Achillea millefolium common yarrow 1.2 50.0






Control Plant

Community



CNRL01R2 WS, Disturbed,

Topsoil added early 1990’s, Seeded to native mix 2005

8 SY NEU NFA9 Stcu Healthy

with problems

Healthy with

problems

ELWS03D

Unknown construction method,

Agronomic mix, Never fenced





with problems



18 Lo END NFA2 Healthy

with problems

Healthy with

problems



Cluster 11 - Western Wheat grass - Northern Wheat grass - Western Porcupine Grass Cluster 11 (Table C.4-21) consists of 9 observations reclaimed with native grass seed mixes and as natural recovery (Table C.4-22). Vegetation transects were completed between 6 and 55 years following reclamation.

The cluster represents a mid-seral native plant community dominated by western wheat grass at 26.7% cover which appears to have come from infill and seed mixes (Table C.4-21). Northern wheat grass (6.1% cover) and June grass (5.3% cover) appear to follow similar paths of establishment to that of western wheat grass.

Western porcupine grass was not in the native seed mix (Rumsey mix) and was not available as commercial seed when the FFFF project was completed; therefore it probably established as infill from the adjoining control areas. Plains rough fescue cover is relatively low at 2.4 % and a constancy of 44.4% and was a component of the Rumsey mix. Prairie sagewort and wild vetch are the dominant native infill forbs at 7.2% and 2.6% cover, respectively.

Seven observations are on a positive trajectory towards a native plant community, whereas 2 sites are on a negative trajectory to a trending-to-modified plant community. Kentucky bluegrass and sheep fescue are the dominant non-native species associated the trending-to-modified communities.

Reclaimed soils are representative of Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems (8 sites) correlated to Loamy-dry and moist range sites and one Dark Brown Solodized Solonetz correlated to late phase Blowout range site.


Plant Species Common Name Cluster 11 9 Obs. Avg. Const. Agropyron smithii western wheat grass 26.7 100.0 Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus Northern wheat grass 6.1 88.9 Stipa curtiseta western porcupine grass 5.4 88.9 Koeleria macrantha June grass 5.3 77.8 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 7.2 88.9 Vicia americana wild vetch 2.6 77.8






Control Plant

Community



ELPL01D Pipeline,



with problems

ELPL06D Pipeline,



ELWS01D Minimal disturbance,

Natural recovery, Never fenced





with problems



9 Lo DRU NFA8 Healthy

with problems

Unhealthy



9 Lo END NFC2 Unhealthy Healthy

with problems

ELWS33D Treatment unknown 6 Lo END NFA8



55 Lo OYE NFA8 Healthy

with problems

Healthy with

problems



55 BlO NEU NFA2 Healthy

with problems

Healthy



Cluster 12 - Northern Wheat grass - Western Porcupine Grass - Low Sedge Cluster 12 (Table C.4-23) consists of 17 observations reclaimed with native grass seed mixes, agronomic seed mixes (may include native grasses) and as natural recovery (Table C.4-24). Vegetation transects were completed between 6 and 55 years following reclamation.

The cluster represents a mid-seral native plant community dominated by northern wheat grass at 14.4% cover, western porcupine grass at 8.6% cover and low sedge at 8.4% cover (Table C.4-23). Northern wheat grass and western porcupine grass appear to have established from infill and / or seed mixes, whereas low sedge established as an infill species. Plains rough fescue averaged 4.5% cover with a constancy of 58.8% and highly variable regarding site treatment and year since reclamation. Pasture sagewort and small-leaved everlasting were the dominant forbs at 12.9% and 1.4% cover, respectively. Forbs, either as a group or as individual species, have relatively low cover values for this cluster. At least 2 sites in this cluster were categorized as undisturbed (topsoil not disturbed, vegetation and topsoil driven over by vehicles). Recovery will depend on the degree of compaction to topsoil, response of vegetation to no vehicle disturbance and grazing pressure.

Fourteen of the observations appear to be on a positive trajectory to native dominated plant communities. Kentucky bluegrass was present in 5 of the 14 sites at relatively low cover values (ranging from 0.5% to 2.4 %) and sheep fescue and Kentucky bluegrass were present in one of the 14 sites (1.7% and 1.5% cover, respectively). The remaining 3 observations appear to be on a negative trajectory to a trending-to-modified plant community with 2 sites having 7.0% cover each of Kentucky bluegrass, and the one site having 5.3% cover of sheep fescue.

Reclaimed soils are representative of Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems (13 sites) correlated to Loamy-dry and moist range sites, Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems (2 sites) correlated to Sandy range sites, Dark Brown Solodized Solonetz correlated to a late phase Blowout range site. Site DDDD02R is representative of an Orthic Brown Chernozem correlated to a Sandy range site.


Plant Species Common Name Cluster 12 17 Obs. Avg. Const. Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus Northern wheat grass 14.4 100.0 Stipa curtiseta western porcupine grass 8.6 82.4 Carex stenophylla low sedge 8.4 100.0 Agropyron smithii western wheat grass 5.5 82.4 Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 12.9 100.0 Antennaria parvifolia small-leaved everlasting 1.4 41.2






Control Plant

Community



CNRL01R WS; Minimal disturbance, Natural recovery 56 SY NEU NFA9 Stcu Healthy with

Problems Healthy with

problems

CNRL03R1 WS; Minimal disturbance, Natural recovery 11 Lo NEU NFA9 Stcu Healthy with


problems

ELPL02D Pipeline, Topsoil stripping, Natural recovery 19 Lo END NFA9 Stcu Healthy with


problems

ELPL07D Pipeline, Topsoil stripping, Natural recovery 11 Lo END NFA8 Healthy with


problems

ELPL08D Pipeline, PIoughed in, Natural recovery 7 Lo END NFA1 low Healthy with

Problems Healthy

ELPL10D Pipeline, Topsoil stripping, Agronomic seed mix 30 Lo END NFA8 Healthy with


problems

ELPL13D Pipeline, Topsoil stripping, Agronomic seed mix 30 Lo END NFA1 low Healthy Healthy

ELPL14D Pipeline, Topsoil stripping, Rumsey native mix 19 Lo END NFA2 Unhealthy Healthy

ELPL15D Pipeline, Topsoil stripping, Rumsey native mix 19 Lo END NFC2 Healthy with

Problems Healthy

ELPL17D Pipeline, Ditch Witch, Natural recovery 16 Lo END NFA8 Unhealthy Healthy with

problems

ELWS11D WS, Minimal disturbance,

Natural recovery, Never fenced


ELWS13D Topsoil stripping, Agronomic mix, Never fenced


ELWS14D Lo END NFA1 low

DDDD02R

Disturbed topsoil, Seeded pipeline,

Seed Mix A9 revised, Fenced

4 SY BIN DMG NSR Healthy with Problems Healthy


Site is fenced, but grazed 55 SY NEU NFA9 Stcu Unhealthy Healthy with

problems


Rough fescue plugs, Site is fenced, but grazed

55 Lo NEU NFA9 Healthy with Problems

Healthy with Problems

X04D10 Pipeline, disturbed topsoil, native seed mix 14 BlO CAS NFA9 Stcu Healthy with

Problems Healthy



Cluster 13 - Pasture Sagewort - Slender Wheat grass Cluster 13 (Table C.4-25) consists of 22 observations reclaimed with a variety of native grass seed mixes, a native mix of native grasses and forbs (ARC diverse mix) and natural recovery (Table C.4-26). Plains rough fescue plugs were planted along with a native grass seed mix (DDDD30R), and sheep fescue was included in a native grass seed mix as a compatible agronomic species (CNRL03R2) (Table C.4-25). Vegetation transects were completed between 1 and 10 years following reclamation.

The cluster represents plant communities with relatively low total vegetation cover (average of 26.9% compared to an average of 88.9% cover for the other 14 clusters). The plant communities also have low cover values for native and seeded grass species. The cluster appears to split somewhat between a pioneer to early seral group, 1 to 2 years since reclamation (Subset A), and a mid-seral to trending-to-modified (18.1% relative cover of non-natives species) group, 3 to 10 years since reclamation (Subset B). Subset A is dominated by a low cover of native infill forbs followed by infill and seeded native grass species. Subset A has low cover of annual weeds (lamb’s-quarter, stinkweed and oak-leaved goosefoot) which can be expected for early seral plant communities on recently reclaimed topsoil. Approximate total vegetation cover for this subset is 10%.

Subset B is dominated by a low cover of seeded native and agronomic grass species followed by native forbs. Approximate total vegetation cover for this subset is 48%. Other disturbances such as moderate grazing pressure may be a factor in reducing cover and desirable species.

Buckbrush was recorded in the cluster at 1.7% cover and a constancy of 63.6% (0.4 % cover in Subset A and 3.0% cover in Subset B).

Reclaimed soils are representative of Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems (15 sites) correlated to Loamy-dry range sites, Orthic Black Chernozem (6 sites) correlated Loamy-moist range site and one Dark Brown Solodized Solonetz correlated to a late phase Blowout range site.


Plant Species Common Name Cluster 13 22 Obs. Avg. Const. Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 2.1 72.7 Vicia americana wild vetch 1.5 77.3 Artemisia ludoviciana prairie sagewort 1.1 50.0 Elymus trachycaulus var. trachycaulus slender wheat grass 2.2 45.5 Festuca hallii plains rough fescue 1.4 68.2 Symphoricarpos occidentalis buckbrush 1.7 63.6






Control Plant

Community



AIHH96M01 ARC Simple seed mix 1 Lo WNT NFA1 low

AIHH96M02 ARC Diverse Seed Mix 1 Lo WNT NFA1 low

AIHH96M03 ARC Mod. Reclamation Mix 1 Lo WNT NFA1 low

AIHH96NR Natural Recovery, WS 1 Lo WNT NFA1 low

AINH96M01 ARC Simple seed mix 1 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha


AINH96M03 ARC Mod. Reclamation Mix 1 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha


X04D97 PL, disturbed topsoil, native seed mix 1 BlO CAS NFA7

AIHH97M01 ARC Simple seed mix 2 Lo WNT NFA7

AIHH97NR Natural Recovery, WS 2 Lo WNT NFA7

AIPL07NR Natural Recovery Pipeline 3 Lo NEU NFA1 high

DDDD30R

Disturbed topsoil, Seeded pipeline, Seed Mix A2 revised, Rough fescue plugs, Site is not fenced

and has been grazed


with Problems

Healthy with

problems

PAR2330R 6 Lo END NFA9 Feha Healthy Healthy

PAR1330R WS, Natural recovery 6 Lo END NFA9 Feha Healthy Healthy

PAR3330R WS, Natural recovery 6 Lo END Healthy Healthy



PAR1521R WS, Natural recovery 7 Lo DRU NFA1 high Healthy Healthy

AINH04M03 ARC Modified Reclamation Mix 9 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha

SA103R

Seeded flow line; SA mix, Land purchased through tax recovery December

2007 and now private land

9 Lo DRU NFA9 Stcu

CNRL03R2

Disturbed portion from hill cut, Seeded native wheat grass cultivars plus hard

fescue


with Problems

Healthy with

problems



Cluster 14 - Pasture Sagewort - Green Needle Grass - Awned Wheat grass Cluster 14 (Table C.4-27) consists of 11 observations reclaimed with native grass seed mixes, two types of native mixes composed of native grasses and forbs (ARC and collected) and as natural recovery (Table C.4-28). Vegetation transects were completed between 2 and 13 years following reclamation.

The cluster represents an early to mid-seral native plant community dominated by pasture sagewort at 27.4% cover and established from infill (Table C.4-27). All other native forbs are either infill or from seed mixes, at less than 1.0% cover for each species. Seeded native grass species of green needle grass and awned wheat grass were the next dominant graminoids at 8.7% and 5.9%, respectively. Plains rough fescue cover at 4.5% and constancy of 90.9% appears to be primarily associated with seeded treatments, which included plains rough fescue in the mixes. The natural recovery treatments had low cover values for plains rough fescue (ranging from 0 to 0.3% cover) compared to seeded sites (ranging from 2.5% to 3.8% cover) for similar years since reclamation.

Nine observations appear to be on a positive trajectory to native dominated plant communities. Within this group, 6 of the 9 sites have low cover values for non-native grass species (ranging from 0.3% to 2.5%). The remaining 2 observations (AINH99NR & X04D99) appear to be on a negative trajectory of trending-to-modified with non-native species cover at 12.0% and 5.0% cover, respectively.

Reclaimed soils are representative of Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems (9 sites) correlated to Loamy-dry and moist range sites, and Dark Brown Solodized Solonetz (2 sites) correlated to late phase Blowout range sites.


Plant Species Common Name Cluster 14 11 Obs. Avg. Const. Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 27.8 100.0 Stipa viridula green needle grass 8.7 72.7 Elymus trachycaulus var. subsecundus Awned wheat grass 5.9 72.7 Festuca hallii plains rough fescue 4.5 90.9 Koeleria macrantha June grass 2.1 72.7 Symphoricarpos occidentalis buckbrush 5.6 72.7








AINH98M01 ARC Simple seed mix 3 Lo NEU



AIPL08M03 Collected Seed mix Pipeline 4 Lo NEU

AINH08M02 ARC Diverse Seed Mix 13 Lo NEU

X04D99 PL, Disturbed topsoil, Native seed mix 3 BlO CAS NFA9 Feha

X04D01 PL, Disturbed topsoil, Native seed mix 5 BlO CAS NFA9 Feha

AINH97NR Natural Recovery, WS 2 Lo NEU NFA1 high

AINH98NR Natural Recovery, WS 3 Lo NEU


No range health scores available for the sites in Disturbance Cluster14



Cluster 15 - Pasture Sagewort - Slender Wheat grass - Foxtail Barley Cluster 15 (Table C.4-29) consists of 16 observations reclaimed with native grass seed mixes, two types of native mixes composed of native grasses and forbs (ARC and collected) and as natural recovery (Table C.4-30). Vegetation transects were completed between 1 and 5 years following reclamation.

The cluster represents an early to mid-seral native plant community dominated pasture sagewort at 15.0% cover, slender wheat grass at 5.6% cover and foxtail barley at 5.8% cover. Both pasture sagewort and foxtail barley are early seral species associated with disturbed soils. The majority of the sites (9 sites) are 1 or 2 years since reclamation and would be considered early seral, but succession to later seral stages appears to be slower on moist loamy Orthic Black and Orthic Dark Brown Chernozemic soils 3 to 5 years since reclamation where the cover of pasture sagewort and foxtail barley remains high, especially on the natural recovery sites. Foxtail barley can be one of the first grasses to establish after disturbance and may become dominant in early seral grassland communities, especially on higher soil moisture sites (Tannas 2003, Tesky 1992).

Slender and awned wheat grass are the dominant seeded native grass species at 5.6% and 2.8% cover, respectively. Plains rough fescue is present at 2.8% and a constancy of 87.5% whereas the cover and constancy of western porcupine grass was relatively low at 0.4% and 31.3%, respectively. All other native forbs are either infill or from seed mixes, at less than 1.4% cover for each species.

Perennial sow-thistle, a noxious weed, was recorded at 1.4% cover and a constancy of 81.3%. This cluster appears to have the highest constancy and second highest cover of noxious weeds, which includes Canada thistle, compared to the other clusters. Only Cluster 11 had a higher cover at 4.1% (perennial sow thistle and Canada thistle combined) but a lower constancy (33%).

Reclaimed soils are representative of Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems (8 sites) correlated to Loamy-dry and moist range sites, Orthic Black Chernozems (7 sites) and one Dark Brown Solodized Solonetz correlated to late phase Blowout range site.


Plant Species Common Name Cluster 15 16 Obs. Avg. Const. Artemisia frigida pasture sagewort 15.0 100.0 Elymus trachycaulus var. trachycaulus Slender wheat grass 5.6 100.0 Hordeum jubatum foxtail barley 5.8 75.0 Elymus trachycaulus var. subsecundus Awned wheat grass 2.8 87.5 Agrostis scabra rough hair grass 3.0 75.0 Festuca hallii plains rough fescue 1.8 81.3 Sonchus arvensis perennial sow-thistle 1.4 81.3





Reclamation GVI Eco-district Control Plant Community

AIHH00NR Natural Recovery, WS 5 Lo WNT NFA1 high




AIPL05M01 ARC Seed Mix Pipeline 1 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha

AIPL05M02 ARC Diverse Seed Mix Pipeline 1 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha

AIPL05M03 Collected Seed Mix Pipeline 1 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha

AIPL05NR Natural Recovery Pipeline 1 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha

AIPL06M01 ARC Seed Mix Pipeline 2 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha

AIPL06M03 Collected Seed Mix Pipeline 2 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha

AIPL06NR Natural Recovery Pipeline 2 Lo NEU NFA9 Feha

AIPL07M01 ARC Seed Mix Pipeline 3 Lo NEU NFA1 high

AIPL07M03 Collected Seed Mix Pipeline 3 Lo NEU NFA1 high

AIPL08M01 ARC Seed Mix Pipeline 4 Lo NEU NFA1 high

AIPL08NR Natural Recovery Pipeline 4 Lo NEU NFA1 high

X04D98 PL, Disturbed topsoil, Native seed mix 2 BlO CAS NFA7

No range health scores available for the sites in Disturbance Cluster15



C.5 Results – Comparison of Recovery for Seeded and Natural Recovery Reclamation Treatments

The clusters of undisturbed sites formed the basis of the ordination of associated disturbed sites. Figures were produced using Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMS). The number of dimensions was chosen to provide a low stress solution. Ordination figures for Control Clusters 2 through 8 are in two dimensions. The ordination figure for Control Cluster 1 is in three dimensions. Only vascular species cover data was used in the ordination. Total vegetation cover, litter cover, and soil exposure data were excluded.

Control Cluster 1 - NFA1. Plains Rough Fescue – Western Porcupine Grass This is a reference grassland plant community on the moister Loamy range sites in the Northern Fescue NSR (Kupsch et al. 2012). Plains rough fescue is the dominant species followed by western porcupine grass. The cluster appears to represent the mid to upper range of the NFA1 plant community ecological status. Range health will be good at these sites with potential for infill from the seed bank or surrounding areas.

The cluster diagram is in three dimensions (Figure C.5-1). None of the seeded or natural recovery sites are clustering closely with the controls, indicating that species composition and cover on the reclaiming disturbance sites is not similar to the undisturbed plant community. However, many of the treatments appear similar to one another.

Figure C.5-1 NMS Ordination of Treatments on Control Cluster 1 Sites (NFA1 Reference)



Control Cluster 2 - NFA1. Plains Rough Fescue – Western Porcupine Grass Control Cluster 2 also correlates to the NFA1 reference grassland plant community on moist Loamy range sites in the Northern Fescue NSR. This cluster is similar to Cluster 1 with plains rough fescue as the dominant species followed by western porcupine grass, but appears to represent the mid to low ecological status for the NFA1 plant community.

The cluster diagram is in two dimensions (Figure C.5-2). A few of the seeded or natural recovery sites are clustering closely with the controls, indicating that at some sites species composition and cover on the reclaiming disturbance sites are similar to the undisturbed plant community. However, this plant community is at risk to invasion by Kentucky bluegrass and awnless brome after disturbance.

Figure C.5-2 NMS Ordination of Treatments on Control Cluster 2 Sites (NFA1 Lower Status)



NFA2. Plains Rough Fescue - Kentucky Bluegrass (Control Cluster 6) Control Cluster 6 correlates to a late seral NFA1 plant community on moist Loamy range sites in the Northern Fescue NSR (Kupsch et al. 2012). Plains rough fescue is still dominant, but the cover is reduced while western porcupine grass has increased appreciably due to moderate grazing pressure. The cover of some forbs and graminoids, such as pasture sagewort, prairie crocus, low sedge and June grass will increase due to their adaptation to moderate grazing pressure. Shrub and aspen forest encroachment will likely occur on lower slope positions. Kentucky bluegrass is present and this plant community is at risk to invasion by Kentucky bluegrass and awnless brome after disturbance.

The cluster diagram is in two dimensions (Figure C.5-3). One natural recovery site is clustering near the controls. All the seeded sites are dissimilar in vascular plant composition and cover.

Figure C.5-3 NMS Ordination of Treatments on Control Cluster 6 Sites (NFA2)



Control Cluster 7 - NFC2. Snowberry/Plains Rough Fescue - Kentucky Bluegrass Control Cluster 7 represents a mid-seral shrub plant community for the reference plant community Snowberry - Plains Rough Fescue (NFC1) on lower slope to level moist Loamy range sites (Kupsch et al. 2012). Plains rough fescue and snowberry are the dominant species in the plant community. Kentucky bluegrass is present as a subdominant invasive species as a result of moderate to heavy grazing pressure and a favourable moisture regime.

The cluster diagram is in two dimensions (Figure C.5-4). All the disturbances reclaimed by seeding are dissimilar in vascular plant composition and cover and highly variable from one another.

Figure C.5-4 NMS Ordination of Treatments on Control Cluster 7 Sites (NFC2)



Control Cluster 8 - NFA7 Western Porcupine Grass - Plains Rough Fescue / NFA10 Plains Rough Fescue - Sedge Control Cluster 8 represents a reference to late seral grassland community types on late phase Solonetz (Blowout), Rego Dark Brown Chernozem (Limy) and Orthic Dark Brown Chernozem (Loamy - dry) range sites (Table C.3-9). Blowout and Limy range sites have soil features, such as a weak hardpan layer or free lime that limit growth and productivity, respectively. The NFA7 (Lo-dry) and NFA10 (BlO) appear to correlate to subsets within Cluster 8 based on differentiation by range site. Sites in this cluster should be less susceptible to invasion by agronomic species due to inherent limitations of the range sites.

The cluster diagram is in two dimensions (Figure C.5-5). Many of the reseeded disturbances are dissimilar in vascular plant composition and cover, although several cluster near the undisturbed grassland. The range of the x and y axes are also smaller than other figures and similar to Figure C.5-1. Growth limitations may favour better reclamation results on these range sites.

Figure C.5-5 NMS Ordination of Treatments on Control Cluster 8 Sites (NFA7/NFA10)



Control Cluster 4 – NFA8 Sedge - Plains Rough Fescue - Western Porcupine Grass Control Cluster 4 contained a significant outlier which distorted the ordination, so it was run again with the outlier removed. This outlier, site ELWS02D, was seeded to an agronomic mix.

This cluster correlates with a mid-seral grassland community type for the Western Porcupine Grass - Plains Rough Fescue (NFA7) reference plant community on Loamy - dry range sites. Increased grazing pressure has reduced the cover of plains rough fescue and western porcupine grass which are replaced by grazing resistant species such as pasture sagewort, upland sedges and June grass. There is risk of invasion by Kentucky bluegrass and awnless brome after disturbance.

The cluster diagram is in two dimensions (Figure C.5-6). Seeded sites are highly variable in vascular species composition and cover however, several seeded and natural recovery sites are clustering near the controls.




Control Cluster 5 - NFA9. Blue Grama – Sedge Control Cluster 5 correlates to an early to mid-seral grassland community type for the Western Porcupine Grass - Plains Rough Fescue (NFA7) reference community on Loamy - dry range sites. Moderate to heavy grazing pressure has reduced the cover of plains rough fescue and western porcupine grass which are replaced by grazing resistant species such as upland sedges and blue grama and pasture sagewort. This plant community appears to be associated with drier upper aspects on hummocky landscapes (Kupsch et al. 2012). The low moisture regime appears to favour the native low growing graminoids and grazing resistant forbs over agronomic species such as Kentucky bluegrass and awnless brome.

The cluster diagram is in two dimensions (Figure C.5-7). Few of the seeded or natural recovery sites are clustering closely with the controls, indicating that species composition and cover on the reclaiming disturbance sites is not similar to the undisturbed plant community. However, the natural recovery treatments appear similar to one another and the seeded treatments appear similar to one another, but represent different species composition and cover.




Control Cluster 3 - NFA9. Blue Grama - Sedge Control Cluster 3 correlates to an early seral grassland community type for the Western Porcupine Grass - Plains Rough Fescue (NFA7) reference plant community. Heavy grazing pressure has greatly reduced the cover of plains rough fescue. Western porcupine grass is present, but grazing resistant species such as upland sedges, blue grama and pasture sagewort have increased in cover. This plant community is primarily associated with Loamy - dry and late phase Blowout range sites. Generally, the range sites are drier due to south aspects, and inherent soil limiting characteristics.

The cluster diagram is in two dimensions (Figure C.5-8). Several of the seeded or natural recovery sites are clustering closely with the controls, including the three natural recovery sites. Seeded sites appear to be more dissimilar to undisturbed grassland.



July 2014 FINAL Appendix D: Page D-131

Appendix D Alberta Innovates - Technology Futures Native Prairie Revegetation Projects

D.1 Alberta Innovates Seed Mixes used for Revegetation Trials Table D.1-1 Seeding Mixes Used for Wellsite Revegetation Trials at Hand Hills and Neutral Hills

Mesic Grasslands Sites

Site Code Seed Mix Species PLS/m2 (species)

PLS/m2 (total)

Portion of Mix

AIHHM01 Simple Mix - $451/ha Festuca hallii 400 600 67.0% Stipa viridula 100 600 16.5% Agropyron subsecundum Hillcrest 45 600 7.5% Koeleria macrantha 30 600 5.0% Stipa curtiseta 25 600 4.0% AIHHM02 Diverse Mix - $1014/ha Festuca hallii 400 600 67.0% Stipa viridula 50 600 8.3%

Agropyron trachycaulum Adanac/Revenue/Highlander z 40 600 6.7%

Stipa curtiseta 25 600 4.2%

Agropyron dasystachyum Critana/Sodar y 20 600 3.3%

Koeleria macrantha 15 600 2.5% Agropyron smithii Walsh 10 600 1.7% Festuca saximontana 6 600 1.0% Heterotheca villosa 10 600 1.7% Vicia americana 8 600 1.3% Achillea millefolium 2 600 0.3% Anemone multifida 2 600 0.3% Erigeron glabellus 2 600 0.3% Gaillardia aristata 2 600 0.3% Hedysarum spp. 2 600 0.3% Penstemon procerus 2 600 0.3% Potentilla gracilis 2 600 0.3% Solidago rigida 2 600 0.3% AIHHM03 Reclamation Mix - $216/ha* Festuca hallii 400 600 67.0%

Agropyron trachycaulum Adanac/Revenue/Highlander z 200 600 33.0%

† All numbers based on pure live seed (PLS). y - at proportions of 1:1 * Actual cost of seed at time of seeding. z - at proportions of 1:1:1



Table D.1-2 Alberta Innovates Seed Mixes Used on the Neutral Hills Bodo Pipeline Revegetation Trials

Site Code Seed Mix Portion of Mix

Contractor Seed Mix AIPL__M02 Festuca hallii 50% Stipa spartea 10% Agropyron dasystachyum/A. subsecundum 10% Agropyron smithii 10% Agropyron trachycaulum 5% Stipa viridula 10% Koeleria macrantha / Bouteloua gracilis 5% AIPL__M01 ARC Seed Mix Festuca hallii 30% Bouteloua gracilis 20% Koeleria macrantha 20% Elymus canadensis 10% Bromus anomalus 10% Agropyron trachycaulum 3% Agropyron subsecundum 3% Carex sp. 1% Ratibida columnifera 1% Achillea millefolium 1% Solidago missouriensis 1% Oenothera biennis 1% AIPL__03 Wild Harvested Seed Mix

No analysis done on the wild collected mix, it was harvested using a “seed stripper” (weed whipper with multiple rotating lines and a collection basket) in the adjacent native land (prairie fescue dominant). Based on the control sampling, the collection area is an early to mid-seral grassland community type (NFA9) for the Western Porcupine Grass - Plains Rough Fescue (NFA7) reference community on Loamy - dry range sites. Plains rough fescue cover is present but reduced by grazing pressure.

100%



D.2 Wellsite Revegetation Trials on Mesic Plains Rough Fescue Grassland Sites

Revegetation trials were established on three mesic plains rough fescue grassland sites, two in the Northern Fescue NSR (Hand Hills and Neutral Hills sites) and one in the Central Parkland NSR (Brownfield site). Four trials were established on each wellsite, a natural recovery site, and three seed mix trials including a simple grass mix, a diverse mix including 10 forbs and a reclamation mix with only two species, plains rough fescue and slender wheat grass. The seed mixes are described in Appendix D: Section D.1. The following series of figures illustrate the composition of plant groups on the recovering wellsite disturbances for each of the three seeded and one natural recovery reclamation treatments over 14 years recovery.

Predictably, the cover of moss and lichen is highest on the undisturbed reference site (Figure D.2-1), with fluctuations over time attributed to annual soil moisture and resulting growth, and sampling variability. Moss and lichen is only present at trace cover on all reclamation treatment areas after 14 years (Figures D.2-2 to D.2-5.

Weedy species are present at 1-3% cover on the reference (Figure D.2-1). The natural recovery site had persistent infestations of weeds, occupying on average between 30% and 40% of the vegetation cover, even after 14 years of infill (Figure D.2-2). The seed mixes created much less weedy plant communities, both in the early years and after 14 years (Figures D.2-3 to D.2-5).

The reference area supports about 40% to 60% native grass cover, 25% to 40% forb cover and 2% to 9% shrub cover (Figure D.2-1). Percent shrub cover is similar on seeded sites (Figures D.2-3 to D.2-5) but increases on average in the natural recovery site to between 10% and 15% cover (Figure D.2-2).

Forb cover is greatest and most consistent on the reference site, averaging between 30% and 40% cover. The cover of disturbance forbs may contribute to high forb cover levels on the seeded and natural recovery sites. Forb cover appears to decline on the natural recovery site and the simple mix site. Forb cover increases over time on the reclamation mix site, where only plains rough fescue and slender wheat grass were seeded. The forb cover is more stable with less fluctuations on the diverse mix site. The diverse seed mix included 10 forb species.

Decreases in the exposure of bare soils over the 14 years are similar for all sites including the natural recovery site (Figures D.2-6 to D.2-10). The build-up of litter is also similar, as is the total cover of vegetation. Decreases in litter levels across all trials in years 13 and 14 may reflect grazing pressure across the wellsite.

Plains rough fescue cover is present on the reference site at between 20% and 33% cover in the seven years when monitoring occurred over a 14 year period (Figure D.2-11). Cover of plains rough fescue established slowly on seeded disturbances, reaching cover levels of over 10% by year 8 after seeding. The three seed mixes each included 67% plains rough fescue in the mix. Plains rough fescue is essentially absent on the natural recovery site until year 13, when it was recorded at an average of 10% cover. Levels declined in year 14 to 2% cover, whereas cover levels on the seeded sites were comparable to the reference by year 14, at between 17% and 24% cover.



Figure D.2-1 Relative Cover of Plant Groups Over Time on the Undisturbed Reference Site

Figure D.2-2 Relative Cover of Plant Groups Over Time on Disturbed Topsoil Allowed to Revegetate Naturally



Figure D.2-3 Relative Cover of Plant Groups Over Time on Disturbed Topsoil Seeded to ARC Simple Mix

Figure D.2-4 Relative Cover of Plant Groups Over Time on Disturbed Topsoil Seeded to ARC Diverse Mix



Figure D.2-5 Relative Cover of Plant Groups Over Time on Disturbed Topsoil Seeded to a Reclamation Mix

Figure D.2-6 Percent Cover of Bare Ground, Litter and Vegetation Over Time on the Undisturbed Reference Site



Figure D.2-7 Percent Cover of Bare Ground, Litter and Vegetation Over Time on the Natural Recovery Site

Figure D.2-8 Percent Cover of Bare Ground, Litter and Vegetation Over Time on the Site Seeded to the Simple Mix



Figure D.2-9 Percent Cover of Bare Ground, Litter and Vegetation Over Time on the Site Seeded to the Diverse Mix

Figure D.2-10 Percent Cover of Bare Ground, Litter and Vegetation Over Time on the Site Seeded to the Reclamation Mix



Figure D.2-11 Comparison of Plains Rough Fescue Cover Over Time from All Revegetation Treatments



Table D.2-1 Comparison of Revegetation Strategies after 13 Years Recovery (2008) Hand Hills Wellsite (Source: Alberta Innovates)

Undisturbed Control Simple Seed Mix Diverse Seed Mix

(M2) Reclamation Mix

(M3) Natural Recovery

Species % Cover Species %

Cover Species % Cover Species %

Cover Species % Cover

FESTHAL 35.0 FESTHAL 29.0 FESTHAL 21.7 ARTELUD 54.3 ARTELUD 11.7 STIPCUR 7.8 STIPVIR 20.0 STIPVIR 18.8 AGROTRA 12.2 AGROSCA 10.8 DANTINT 3.8 ARTELUD 7.5 SONCARV 10.0 FESTHAL 8.0 HIERODO 9.3 GEUMTRI 3.3 VICIAME 7.5 AGROSCA 8.3 VICIAME 6.3 BROMINE 9.2 GALIBOR 2.5 ROSAWOO 6.7 STACPAL 6.3 AGROSCA 5.8 KOELMAC 7.5 ACHIMIL 2.0 AGROSCA 5.8 STIPCUR 6.3 TARAOFF 2.8 ARTEFRI 5.7 VICIAME 1.5 ARTEFRI 4.3 ARTELUD 5.3 ASTEFAL 2.5 STACPAL 5.7 AGROSCA 1.2 ACHIMIL 3.0 CAMPROT 5.0 ACHIMIL 2.0 STIPCUR 5.3 ASTESPP 0.8 STIPCUR 2.8 VICIAME 4.7 CERAARV 1.7 ASTEFAL 4.5 STELLON 0.8 KOELMAC 2.7 CERAARV 4.0 GALIBOR 1.7 TARAOFF 4.5 CAMPROT 0.7 ANTENEG 2.0 AGROSMI 2.0 CREPTEC 1.0 AGROTRA 4.2 AGROSMI 0.3 CAMPROT 1.5 AGROTRA 1.7 POAPRA 0.8 AGROSUB 2.3 TARAOFF 0.3 DANTSPP 1.2 SOLISPP 1.7 SISYMON 0.8 ACHIMIL 1.7 ARTELUD 0.2 CERAARV 0.8 TARAOFF 1.5

ASTESPP 1.7

ARNIFUL 0.2 AGRODAS 0.3 ACHIMIL 1.0

FESTHAL 1.7

BOUTGRA 0.3 ASTEFAL 0.8

VICIAME 1.7

TARAOFF 0.3 SISYMON 0.3

ASTRFLE 1.0

FESTSAX 1.0

BOUTGRA 0.8

CIRSARV 0.8

GAILARI 0.8

Total Live Cover 60.5 95.8 99.5 100.0 91.8



Table D.2-2 Comparison of Revegetation Strategies after 13 Years Recovery (2008) Neutral Hills Wellsite (Source: Alberta Innovates)

Control Simple Seed Mix (M1)

Diverse Seed Mix (M2)

Reclamation Mix (M3) Natural Recovery

Species % Cover Const Species %

Cover Species % Cover Species %

Cover Species % Cover

CARESPP 11.5 100.0 FESTHAL 27.0 ARTEFRI 17.7 FESTHAL 32.2 BROMINE 50.7 FESTHAL 9.2 100.0 STIPVIR 13.7 FESTHAL 15.0 AGROTRA 18.3 SYMPSPP 15.0 BOUTGRA 6.7 100.0 ARTEFRI 9.5 AGROSMI 8.3 ARTEFRI 11.7 ROSAWOO 7.5 ARTEFRI 6.4 100.0 LYGOJUN 6.7 CAREOBT 8.3 STIPVIR 7.5 POAPRA 6.7 KOELMAC 2.4 100.0 ROSAWOO 6.7 ROSAARK 7.8 POTESPP 3.3 ROSAARK 4.2 THERRHO 1.5 100.0 ARTELUD 6.2 STIPVIR 7.5 SYMPSPP 3.3 EPILSPP 3.3 ARTELUD 1.1 100.0 POASPP 4.2 PSORARG 5.8 ASTELAE 3.2 FESTHAL 2.5 PSORARG 0.8 100.0 FESTSAX 3.8 SYMPSPP 5.3 VICIAME 2.8 HETEVIL 2.5 SYMPOCC 2.7 83.3 HELIHOO 2.5 AGROTRA 4.8 ASTEFAL 2.0 ARTELUD 1.7 ANEMPAT 2.5 83.3 POAPRA 2.5 FESTSAX 4.2 DANTSPP 2.0 ARTEFRI 0.8 GALIBOR 2.1 83.3 PSORARG 2.5 POASPP 3.3 COMAUMB 1.7 FESTSAX 0.8 ACHIMIL 2.0 83.3 KOELMAC 2.3 VICIAME 2.8 HELIHOO 1.7 GALETET 0.8 HETEVIL 1.5 83.3 AGRODAS 1.8 ASTELAE 1.7 CAREOBT 1.5 RUMESPP 0.8 ROSAWOO 1.2 83.3 VICIAME 1.7 HELIHOO 1.7 PSORARG 1.2 THERRHO 0.8 AGROSUB 0.9 83.3 DANTSPP 1.3 ACHIMIL 1.5 AGRODAS 0.8 VICIAME 0.8 AGROSMI 0.6 83.3 AGROSMI 1.2 COMAUMB 0.8 STIPCUR 0.8 POASPP 0.3 COMAUMB 0.6 83.3 CAREOBT 0.8 ARTELUD 0.7 ROSAARK 0.7 ACHIMIL 0.2 STIPCOM 2.3 66.7 TRAGDUB 0.3 ASTRFLE 0.7 ANDROCC 0.3

SOLIMIS 1.5 66.7

KOELMAC 0.7 AGRODAS 1.3 66.7

SPHACOC 0.7

STIPCUR 1.0 66.7

LYGOJUN 0.3 VICIAME 0.1 66.7

AGROTRA 0.8 50.0 POAPRA 0.7 50.0 SPHACOC 0.5 50.0 ANEMCAN 0.4 50.0 SOLIRIG 0.4 50.0 ASTEERI 0.3 50.0 HELIHOO 0.1 33.3

CAMPROT 0.2 50.0 LYGOJUN 0.1 33.3 POTEPEN 0.2 50.0 AGROSCA 0.1 33.3 MUHLCUS 0.1 50.0 DANTINT 0.1 33.3 VIOLSPP 0.0 50.0 ANDROCC 0.0 33.3 SOLISPP 0.4 33.3 PENSSPP 0.0 33.3 MUHLRIC 0.3 33.3 LITHINC 0.0 33.3 PHLOHOO 0.3 33.3 CARESTE 1.0 16.7 ASTELAE 0.2 33.3 ANEMMUL 0.3 16.7 ERIGSPP 0.1 33.3 POACAN 0.1 16.7 ASTESPP 0.1 33.3 HELISUB 0.1 16.7



D.3 Alberta Innovates Plains Rough Fescue Prairie Restoration Trials on a Pipeline Right-Of-Way in Bodo Hills

Table D.3-1 Comparison of Revegetation Strategies after 14 Years Recovery (2008) Neutral Hills Pipeline (Alberta Innovates)

Species Cover Const Species Cover Species Cover Species Cover Species CoverFESTHAL 43.3 100 ARTEFRI 14.7 STIPVIR 31.0 SYMPOCC 17.7 ARTEFRI 10.3BOUTGRA 3.1 100 ELYMCAN 11.8 POAPAL 17.0 ARTEFRI 17.3 STIPCOM 9.9ARTEFRI 3.1 100 ACHIMIL 10.0 ARTEFRI 16.9 FESTHAL 8.8 HORDJUB 8.8KOELMAC 2.4 100 ARTELUD 7.3 AGROTRA 11.9 AGROSUB 7.1 AGROTRA 7.9ASTELAE 1.4 100 AGROTRA 6.8 SYMPOCC 11.9 STIPVIR 6.5 POTEANS 7.5ROSAWOO 1.4 100 KOELMAC 6.8 FESTHAL 6.9 STIPCOM 5.8 CIRSARV 4.8ACHIMIL 1.3 100 SYMPOCC 5.6 ASTRFLE 6.5 KOELMAC 5.4 DISTSTR 4.8ASTEERI 1.1 100 AGROSUB 5.5 AGROSMI 5.6 POAPAL 4.8 KOELMAC 3.8POPUTRE 1.0 75 BROMANO 4.5 HETEVIL 4.4 AGROTRA 3.3 ACHIMIL 3.6SYMPSPP 0.8 75 SOLIMIS 4.1 ARTELUD 4.0 ELYMCAN 2.5 CIRSSPP 3.3STIPCUR 0.8 75 TARAOFF 4.1 AGROSUB 3.8 BOUTGRA 2.1 ROSAWOO 3.3POTEPEN 0.5 75 ASTRFLE 2.9 EPILSPP 3.1 AGROSMI 1.9 CARESPP 3.1AGROSMI 0.2 75 CERAARV 2.7 TARAOFF 3.1 CERAARV 1.7 FESTHAL 2.9CARESPP 4.6 50 BOUTGRA 2.6 SOLIMOL 2.8 POTEANS 1.7 HETEVIL 2.5AGRODAS 2.8 50 POAPAL 2.3 BOUTGRA 2.5 ACHIMIL 1.4 SYMPOCC 2.5STIPCOM 2.5 50 POTEANS 2.1 KOELMAC 2.5 COMAUMB 1.3 ASTRFLE 2.3GEUMTRI 0.8 50 SONCARV 1.8 RATICOL 2.5 VICIAME 1.3 BOUTGRA 2.1AGROSUB 0.7 50 CARESPP 1.4 ACHIMIL 2.3 ASTRFLE 1.0 AGROSUB 1.8DELPBIC 0.6 50 FESTHAL 1.4 CERAARV 2.1 CARESPP 0.9 POAPAL 1.7GALIBOR 0.1 50 ASTELAE 0.9 POTEANS 1.9 ARTELUD 0.8 THERRHO 1.7LYGOJUN 0.1 50 STIPCUR 0.9 CARESPP 1.3 ROSAWOO 0.8 SONCARV 1.3ASTRDAS 1.1 25 SOLIMOL 0.8 COMAUMB 1.3 ASTELAE 0.6 TARAOFF 1.2SYMPOCC 0.6 25 TRAGDUB 0.8 ROSAWOO 1.3 AGROSCA 0.4 AGROSMI 0.8THERRHO 0.6 25 THERRHO 0.7 STIPCOM 1.3 DISTSTR 0.4 CERAARV 0.8DANTINT 0.5 25 AGOSGLA 0.5 ASTELAE 1.0 HETEVIL 0.4 COMAUMB 0.8SOLIRIG 0.5 25 AGROSCA 0.5 CREPTEC 0.6 SISYMON 0.4 GAURCOC 0.8ASTRCRA 0.4 25 CAREOBT 0.5 PLANMAJ 0.6 SOLIMOL 0.4 POASPP 0.8ASTRFLE 0.4 25 COLLLIN 0.5 POTECON 0.6 TRAGDUB 0.4 TRAGDUB 0.8ANEMPAT 0.3 25 DISTSTR 0.5 HORDJUB 0.3 TARAOFF 0.3 LYGOJUN 0.7ANEMMUL 0.3 25 RATICOL 0.5 SISYMON 0.3 CAMPROT 0.1 AGROSCA 0.4ASTRSPP 0.2 25 ROSAWOO 0.5 ASTELAE 0.4POASPP 0.2 25 CREPTEC 0.2 LINULEW 0.4SOLIMIS 0.2 25 OXYTSER 0.4GAURCOC 0.1 25 RANUCYM 0.4FESTSAX 0.1 25 SOLIMOL 0.4CAMPROT 0.0 25 AGOSGLA 0.2AGROSCA 0.0 25 EPILSPP 0.2COMAUMB 0.0 25 ANDROCC 0.1ORTHLUT 0.0 25 CREPTEC 0.1

Control ARC Seed Mix (M1) Contractor's Seedmix (M2) Collected Seed Mix (M3) Natural Recovery


July 2014 FINAL Appendix E: Page E-143

Appendix E Case Study - Plains Rough Fescue Seeding

Peggy Desserud, PhD, MEDes, P.Biol.

Rough Fescue Seeding in the Northern Fescue Subregion - A Case Study Plains rough fescue (Festuca hallii), one of the dominant species in the Northern Fescue NSR, is difficult to restore once disturbed by oil and gas development. Seeding plains rough fescue on oil and gas disturbances has had little success. Rough fescue requires 3 to 5 years to become established, during which time it may be exposed to competition from faster-growing species, such as wheat grasses. Seeding rates for rough fescue are not well established and may vary from 10 to 50% of the seed mix.

In 2007, a seeding experiment was set up on a 0.7 ha wellsite, west of the Hand Hills in the Northern Fescue NSR. The experiment tested the hypothesis that rough fescue could establish more easily if competition from aggressive species was reduced. The site was divided into 6 m wide strips and seeded with two seed mixes in different strips. One seed mix was almost 100% plains rough fescue, and one was a native seed mix containing plains rough fescue, June grass (Koeleria macrantha), needle-and-thread (Stipa comata), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), slender wheat grass (Agropyron trachycaulum) and Western wheat grass (Agropyron smithii) (Table E-1). A mix of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and plains rough fescue was also seeded in some of the strips for a different experiment. The well site was fenced to prevent cattle and pronghorn grazing for the first 3 years, after which the fence was removed.

Table E-1 Seed Mixes Used in the Rough Fescue Seeding Experiment

Species in Seed Mixes Species Scientific Names

Seed Mix %

Seeding Rate kg/ha PLS % PLS

Seeds/m2 Rough Fescue Mix 15.5

Plains rough fescue Festuca hallii 99 15.5 95 1,304 Other native species 1 n/a

Native Mix 6.6 Plains rough fescue Festuca hallii 20 1.3 95 113 June grass Koeleria macrantha 20 1.3 99 457 Needle and thread Stipa comata 25 1.7 45 19 Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis 30 2.0 70 256

Slender wheat grass Elymus trachycaulus var. trachycaulus

3 0.2 95 5

Western wheat grass Agropyron smithii 2 0.1 67 2



In 2010, three years after seeding, strips seeded with the native mix showed good establishment of all species, except plains rough fescue (Figure E-1). In fact, plains rough fescue was almost non-existent despite having been 20% of the seed mix. On the other hand, slender wheat grass dominated with over 15% of the cover, even though the seed mix contained only 3% of slender wheat grass seed (Figure E-2).

In strips seeded with almost 100% rough fescue, there was good establishment of rough fescue. In fact, its cover was similar to undisturbed rough fescue grassland. Surprisingly many non-seeded species also appeared, including many forbs (Figure E-1). Seed rain from adjacent strips that were seeded with the native mix probably resulted in wheat grass, June grass and blue grama cover. Plains rough fescue seed mix strips had more bare ground than Native mix strips, which probably attracted annual and perennial forbs (Figure E-3). Bare ground and few wheat grasses may have contributed to rough fescue success. With little competition from fast-growing wheat grasses, rough fescue may have had time to become established by the third year (Figure E-4). Interestingly, strips seeded with rough fescue had similar diversity and species richness to native mix strips, even though they were seeded with a monoculture (Figure E-2).

Figure E-1 Comparison of Seed Mix Results with Undisturbed Grassland Showing “Rough fescue” and Native Seed Mixes Species in Year 3



Figure E-2 Sample Plot of Native Mix Seeding in Year 3 Showing Slender Wheat grass, June Grass, Blue Grama, Various Forbs, and No Rough Fescue

Figure E-3 Comparison of Seed Mix Results with Undisturbed Grassland Showing “Rough fescue” and Native Seed Mixes Cover, Non-native Species, Bare ground, Litter and Diversity in Year 3



Figure E-4 Sample Plot of “Rough fescue” Seeding in Year 3 Showing Well-established Rough Fescue Plants, One of Which had Flowered

In 2013, seven years after seeding, the site was assessed again and results were compared to overall cover from Year 3 (Table E-2). Green needle grass, which had not been seeded but did occur in the adjacent grassland, was the dominant grass in Year 7. Slender wheat grass, dominant in Year 3, had reduced cover by Year 7. Plains rough fescue persisted into Year 7, being well established. Species which had not been seeded, but appeared in Year 7, included Western porcupine grass, native bluegrasses, Northern wheat grass (Agropyron dasystachyum) and tickle grass (Agrostis scabra). Prairie rose (Rosa arkansana) and buckbrush (Symphoricarpos occidentalis) were also found. Species that occurred in Year 3 but disappeared or reduced in cover by Year 7 were foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum) and pasture sagewort (Artemisia frigida) (Figure E-5).



Table E-2 Species Found on the Well Site; 3 Years and 7 Years After Initial Seeding

Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Age of Recovery

Year 3 (% cover) Year 7 (% cover) Green needle grass Stipa viridula 8.0 15 Kentucky bluegrass* Poa pratensis 7.1 10 Needle and thread* Stipa comata 1.6 10 Plains rough fescue* Festuca hallii 6.8 10 Western wheat grass* Agropyron smithii 0.9 10 Slender wheat grass* Elymus trachycaulus var. trachycaulus 11.4 5 Awnless brome Bromus inermis 1.0 5 Blue grama* Bouteloua gracilis 7.8 2 June grass* Koeleria macrantha 3.9 2 Western porcupine grass Stipa curtiseta 1.7 2 Tickle grass Agrostis scabra 0.0 1 Crested wheat grass Agropyron cristatum 0.7 0 Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum 4.6 0 Native bluegrass Poa sp. 1.5 1.0 Northern wheat grass Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus 1.6 1.0

Common yarrow Achillea millefolium 0.4 0.5 Pasture sagewort Artemisia frigida 23.0 1.0 Prairie aster Aster falcatus 0.0 1.0 Prairie rose Rosa arkansana 1.0 1.0 Buckbrush Symphoricarpos occidentalis 0.3 1.0

Species found in the seed mixes are indicated with “*”



Figure E-5 Wellsite 7 Years After Seeding Showing Green Needle Grass, Western Porcupine Grass, Northern and Western Wheat Grass, Among Others

On one side of the wellsite was an old oil well, surrounded by awnless brome (Bromus inermis) and crested wheat grass (Agropyron cristatum). Unfortunately these species invaded the experimental wellsite. For the first three years, these species were spot sprayed, and by Year 7 no crested wheat grass was found. However, awnless brome persisted and in fact increased in cover. Hopefully, the strong presence of needle grasses will keep awnless brome at bay.

In conclusion, this study demonstrated the possibility of restoring plains rough fescue grassland species. The success of plains rough fescue with little competition underscores the importance of reducing the amount and number of aggressive species in rough fescue grassland reclamation seeding. While monoculture seeding of plains rough fescue is not practical due to low seed availability and high cost, seed mixes should include few or no wheat grasses, and instead a mix of other native grasses common in the area.

For more information on the results of this research, please see Desserud and Naeth (2013) or Desserud’s PhD dissertation (Desserud 2011) available on the Foothills Restoration Forum web site: http://www.foothillsrestorationforum.ca.


July 2014 FINAL Appendix F: Page F-149

Appendix F Case Study - Natural Recovery in the Rumsey Natural Area

Peggy Desserud, PhD, MEDes, P.Biol.

Natural Recovery of 13 Pipelines in the Rumsey Natural Area - A Case Study

Plains rough fescue (Festuca hallii), one of the dominant species in the Northern Fescue NSR, is difficult to restore once disturbed by oil and gas development. Seeding rough fescue on oil and gas disturbances has had little success. Elsinger (2009) assessed vegetation on pipelines and well sites in the Rumsey Natural Area, located in the Northern Fescue NSR. She reported numerous examples of unsuccessful revegetation of rough fescue following seeding. Desserud et al. (2010) studied pipelines in the Foothills Fescue NSR and also found those seeded with Foothills rough fescue (Festuca campestris) were unsuccessful. On the other hand, both studies found pipelines left to natural recovery had successful rough fescue establishment.

For three years the recovery of three newly-constructed pipelines in the Rumsey Natural Area which were left to natural recovery was followed. Third year results were combined with Elsinger’s (2009) data of natural recovery pipelines constructed between 1983 and 2000. Each of the pipelines were installed in a narrow trench, about 80 cm wide. Five of the pipelines were installed using a plough-in technique. A plough creates a narrow trench the width of the bucket, pipe is fed into the trench, and soil and sod are allowed to fall back into place. Six pipelines were topsoil-stripped, where topsoil was stripped from the trench, and replaced following pipe installation. Two pipelines used ditch-witch construction, with a trencher that chops sod, mixing it with trench soil, and the broken sod/soil mix is used to cover the pipe.

Despite differences in specific species, all natural recovery pipelines had something in common with undisturbed grassland. They all have significantly more native species and few non-native species, such as Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa) and awnless brome (Bromus inermis) (Figure F-1).



Figure F-1 Comparison of Pipeline ROWs Grouped by Age; Showing Native Versus Non-native Plants

Non-native Species included: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa) and awnless brome (Bromus inermis)

Differences were found in vegetation cover based on the age of pipeline construction, although not what was expected (Table F-1). As a slow-growing species, it was expected more rough fescue would occur on older pipelines and less on the youngest. However, pipelines less than 10 years old were dominated by rough fescue and western porcupine grass (Fescue Association), similar to undisturbed grassland. The youngest pipelines had the benefit of low impact construction, such as plough-in pipelines (Figures F-2 and F-3). During plough-in construction, care was taken to retain intact sod, which probably accounted for the recovery of rough fescue. Its deep roots would remain largely intact, allowing it to continue growing once the sod fell back into place.



Table F-1 Selected Species Found on Natural Recovery Pipelines and Their Controls

Species Pipeline age

% Cover <10 11 – 16 17 - 23 Undisturbed

Plains rough fescue Festuca hallii 9.2 1.9 5.1 22.4 Western porcupine grass Stipa curtiseta 8.3 8.1 8.6 13.5 June grass Koeleria macrantha 1.3 5.6 8.5 6.0 Undifferentiated sedge Carex spp. 6.6 7.8 2.7 5.0

Northern wheat grass Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus 3.5 13.6 13.0 3.0

Undifferentiated bluegrasses Poa spp. 4.2 6.7 7.7 2.1 Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.7 Western wheat grass Agropyron smithii 5.1 15.7 6.3 1.4 Green needle grass Stipa viridula 0.1 0.9 3.0 0.9 Hooker's oat grass Helictotrichon hookeri 1.3 0.0 0.7 0.8

Slender wheat grass Elymus trachycaulus var. trachycaulus 3.1 4.3 1.5 0.8

Pasture sagewort Artemisia frigida 7.5 16.0 5.9 6.9 Three-flowered avens Geum triflorum 0.2 0.5 2.8 2.9 Tufted fleabane Erigeron caespitosus 0.9 0.9 0.2 2.1 Prairie crocus Anemone patens 0.2 0.0 1.1 1.8 Small-leaved everlasting Antennaria parvifolia 1.1 0.0 5.2 1.7 Golden bean Thermopsis rhombifolia 0.3 3.4 0.5 1.1 American vetch Vicia americana 1.4 1.7 1.9 1.0 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0.9 1.8 1.9 0.9 Chickweed Cerastium arvense 2.5 0.7 0.0 0.9 Prairie sagewort Artemisia ludoviciana 1.8 0.6 1.9 0.8 Prairie rose Rosa arkansana 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.9

Buckbrush Symphoricarpos occidentalis 4.3 3.8 6.8 1.7

Bare ground 29.7 9.0 17.7 1.5 Litter 20.2 15.3 11.7 25.4 Moss and lichens 0.6 2.4 1.7 9.3



Figure F-2 Paramount Resources First Year Natural Recovery Pipeline

Constructed with a Spider-plow, showing first year recovery on a north-facing slope with dominance of bare ground and initial forbs.



Figure F-3 Paramount Resources Second Year Natural Recovery Pipeline

Constructed with a Spider-plow, showing second year recovery on a north-facing slope with establishment of perennial grasses, e.g. wheat grasses, bluegrasses and rough fescue.



Pipelines 11 to 23 years old were dominated by Western and Northern wheat grass and did not resemble undisturbed rough fescue grassland. These pipelines were constructed with top-soil stripping or ditch-witch, which may have resulted in greater disturbance, attracting wheat grasses. Wheat grasses are aggressive competitors once they become established and can prevent establishment of other perennials, such as slow-growing rough fescue (Figure F-4). These pipelines also had the highest cover of June grass, bluegrasses and pasture sagewort.

Figure F-4 Comparison of Pipeline ROWs By Age of Construction Showing Cover of Fescue Association and Wheat grass Species

Fescue association is composed of rough fescue, Western porcupine grass and June grass. Wheat grasses are Western, Northern and slender wheat grasses.



Figure F-5 Comparison of Pipeline ROWs by Age of Construction Showing Bare Ground and Moss / Lichens Cover

An expected trend was found when comparing bare ground and moss/lichens cover between different pipeline ages. Bare ground decreased as pipelines aged, although the oldest pipelines retained more bare ground than younger pipelines, probably due to higher impact construction. None approached undisturbed grassland levels. Moss and lichen cover, on the other hand, followed an expected trend, appearing in greater cover on the oldest pipelines (Figure F-5).

In conclusion, pipelines dominated by wheat grasses were associated with the greatest disturbance in our study, top-soil-strip or ditch-witch construction techniques. Despite being some of the oldest pipelines their covers were dissimilar to undisturbed grassland and were still dominated by wheat grasses, which had probably established in early days. Bare ground was apparent on all pipelines, although bare ground decreased as pipelines aged. Minimal disturbance, such as plough-in pipelines resulted in the best recovery, with trends towards native grassland cover.

For more details about the differences in natural recovery pipeline construction techniques, please refer to Desserud and Naeth (2013) or Desserud’s PhD dissertation (Desserud 2011) available on the Foothills Restoration Forum web site: http://www.foothillsrestorationforum.ca.

northern fescue natural subregion€¦ · 15/3/2013 · • link long-term monitoring data to...

Documents